summary of responses (sor) document for the · european organisation for the safety of air...

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES (SOR) DOCUMENT FOR THE

REGULATORY APPROACH FOR AN INTEROPERABILITY IMPLEMENTING RULE ON

PERFORMANCE BASED NAVIGATION (PBN)

Formal Consultation 31 July – 16 November 2012

25 January 2013 Draft Edition 0.3

DRAFT REGULATORY APPROACH FOR AN INTEROPERABILITY IMPLEMENTING RULE ON PBN SUMMARY OF RESPONSES DOCUMENT/ENPRM/12-004/Edition 0.3

- ii -

DOCUMENT CONTROL

DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD

The following table records the complete history of the successive editions of the present document.

Edition Number

Edition Date Reason for Change Pages

Affected

0.1 26-11-12 Creation of Draft Strawman 'Early' SOR All

0.2 16-01-13 Draft 'Early' SOR for Review All

0.3 25-01-13 Updated Draft 'Early' SOR for Stakeholder Consultation Workshop

Status: Draft Edition No: 0.3 Date: 16 January 2013 Document No: SES/IOP/PBN/SOR-REGAP/0.3

Activity Manager: Sasho NESHEVSKI

Reviewed and approved: Peter GREEN


TABLE OF CONTENTS

DOCUMENT CONTROL ...................................................................................................... II

TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................... 1

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 2 1.1 GENERAL.................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 SCOPE OF CONSULTATION ................................................................................... 2 1.3 PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF DOCUMENT...................................................... 3

2. OUTCOME OF THE FORMAL CONSULTATION ........................................................ 4 2.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Review of Comments.......................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Overall Response ............................................................................................... 4

2.2 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED .......................................... 5 2.2.1 Distribution of Comments Between Stakeholder Categories.............................. 5 2.2.2 Proposed Regulatory Approach Options ............................................................ 5 2.2.3 Decision on the Preferred Regulatory Approach Option..................................... 7

2.3 SPECIFIC RESPONSES ........................................................................................... 7 2.3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 7 2.3.2 Key Issues .......................................................................................................... 8

2.3.2.1 Global Harmonisation and Consistency ................................................. 8 2.3.2.2 Navigation Performance Requirements and Stakeholder Actions....... 9 2.3.2.3 Implementation Conditions .................................................................... 10 2.3.2.4 Means of Compliance ............................................................................. 13 2.3.2.5 Economic Impact Assessment .............................................................. 14 2.3.2.6 Safety Impact Assessment..................................................................... 16 2.3.2.7 Civil-Military Coordination ..................................................................... 17 2.3.2.8 Impact on General Aviation Stakeholders ............................................ 18 2.3.2.9 Reversionary Mode of Operation........................................................... 19 2.3.2.10 Applicability of the SES Legislation to Providers outside EU ............ 19 2.3.2.11 Availability of Harmonised High Quality Aeronautical Data ............... 20

3. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS ............................................................................ 20 ANNEX A LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS THAT PROVIDED COMMENTS TO THE FORMAL CONSULTATION............................................................................................ 24 ANNEX B TABLE OF STAKEHOLDER PREFERENCES ......................................... 26 ANNEX C TABLE OF RECEIVED COMMENTS........................................................ 34 APPENDIX 1 TO ANNEX C IATA ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL................................ 202

- 1 -


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

The European Commission has issued a Mandate1 to EUROCONTROL to assist with the development of a draft Single European Sky (SES) interoperability Implementing Rule (IR) on Performance Based Navigation (PBN) (hereinafter referred to as the draft PBN IR).

In accordance with the Initial Plan agreed by the Commission and EUROCONTROL, the first step of the development of a draft PBN IR is the production of the Regulatory Approach Document (RAD). The RAD describes the possible options for the regulatory approach for the development of a draft PBN IR.

The draft RAD was circulated for public comment between 31 July and 16 November 2012, using the mechanisms of the EUROCONTROL Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (ENPRM) process, to meet SES mandate requirements (ENPRM/12-004). This widespread consultation allows all States, Stakeholders and interested parties to express their formal views on the draft RAD.

1.2 SCOPE OF CONSULTATION

The purpose of the formal consultation on the draft RAD was to collect views and feedback on the document in general and, in particular, on the regulatory coverage defining the content of a draft PBN IR as well as on the preference for one of the regulatory approach options proposed for the development of the draft IR.

The consultation documentation comprised the draft RAD for PBN and a Consultation Response Sheet. In the Consultation Response Sheet, the addressees were asked to express their formal view on the regulatory approach option. Copies were sent directly to the following:

Civil and Military regulatory authorities and key Air Traffic Service (ATS) providers of each EUROCONTROL Member State;

Regulatory authorities of States’ observers at the Provisional Council;

European Commission, European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO);

International Organisations having observer status at the Provisional Council;

Key trade and professional associations having observer status at the Provisional Council;

Chairmen of the following bodies:

CMIC (Civil / Military Interface Standing Committee)

AAB (Agency Advisory Board)

ANSB (Air Navigation Services Board)

MAB (Military ATM Board)

MILHAG (Military Harmonisation Group)

SRC (Safety Regulation Commission)

1 PBN Mandate from the European Commission; letter DG MOVE E2/MB/TJ/ics D(2011)393099, dated 08 April 2011.

- 2 -


PRC (Performance Review Commission)

Enlarged Committee for Route Charges

The documentation was also made available through existing EUROCONTROL working arrangements and to members of the public via the EUROCONTROL web site.

1.3 PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF DOCUMENT

The purpose of this Summary of Responses (SOR) document is to provide a consolidation of the main comments received as part of the formal consultation activity, as well as to provide EUROCONTROL responses to, and disposal of, those comments. This early draft version of the SOR is published to support a Stakeholder Consultation Workshop on 05 February 2013 to discuss the outcome of the consultation. Following the workshop, the draft SOR will be updated to provide a final version, which will be published on the EUROCONTROL website. On the basis of the final version of the SOR, the draft RAD will be amended to take account of the results of the formal consultation and will then be submitted to the European Commission as a formal deliverable of the PBN Mandate.

The responses section (Section 2) of this SOR document is structured as follows:

General Response – providing a general analysis of the comments received;

Consolidated Comments and Responses – summarising the comments made and providing the associated responses.

Three annexes are provided with the document as follows:

Annex A contains a list of those Stakeholders that provided comments on the formal consultation;

Annex B provides a table containing the preferences for the regulatory approach options that were indicated by stakeholders in their Consultation Response Sheets, together with the reasons for their choices and/or an explanation of any alternative proposals;

Annex C provides a table containing all of the comments provided by stakeholders, the proposed ‘disposal’ of each comment, i.e. ‘Accepted’, ‘Partially Accepted’, ‘Rejected’ or ‘Noted’, proposed responses and cross-references to the sections within the main body of the SOR document where the issues are summarised and EUROCONTROL consolidated responses are provided.

- 3 -


- 4 -

2. OUTCOME OF THE FORMAL CONSULTATION

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.1.1 Review of Comments

The review of comments was carried out by members of the Implementing Rule Drafting Group (IRDG), which was established under the formal EUROCONTROL SES mandate working arrangements. The IRDG consists of Agency experts from the SES Unit, Legal service, Navigation Unit, Safety, Economic, Environment, Performance, and Civil-Military coordination domains. EASA is also represented in the IRDG.

2.1.2 Overall Response

As a result of this consultation, a total of 53 separate written submissions were received from stakeholders, totalling 320 individual comments.

Responses were submitted from a broad cross-section of stakeholders, including national authorities, airspace users, ANSPs, airport operators, GA and the military. Overall, the responses indicated strong support for the identified need for regulation on PBN, to achieve harmonisation of navigation performance requirements and functionalities, as well as coordination and synchronisation of the introduction of airborne capabilities and the implementation of PBN ATS routes and procedures in the European ATM Network.

The general mood of the stakeholder comments was constructive and engaging, with a large number of specific recommendations made for improvement of the draft RAD. The statistical analysis of the comments received, including preferences for regulatory options, is presented in Section 2.2. The main themes emerging from the comments and the summarised responses to them are listed in section 2.3.


2.2 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED

2.2.1 Distribution of Comments between Stakeholder Categories

The distribution of the comments received from the different stakeholder categories is shown in the chart below by number and associated percentage:

Responses Received by Stakeholders

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)28%

EUROCONTROL Body (ECTL)

0%

General Aviation (GA)4%

Industry (IND)8%

International Organisation (INT)0%

Military Authority (MOD)8%

National Supervisory Authority (NSA)

11%

Other0%

Service Provider (ANSP)28%Airport Operator (AO)

2%

Airspace User (AU)11%

Airport Operator (AO)

Airspace User (AU)

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

EUROCONTROL Body (ECTL)

General Aviation (GA)

Industry (IND)

International Organisation (INT)

Military Authority (MOD)

National Supervisory Authority (NSA)

Other

Service Provider (ANSP)

2.2.2 Proposed Regulatory Approach Options

The diagrams below display the distribution of preferences expressed for the regulatory options included in the draft RAD. The 3 main options were as follows:

Option 1 – “Minimum Regulatory Coverage” aims at ensuring a uniform PBN solution with Advanced RNP (1 NM Total System Error - TSE) capability and with full flexibility to support Terminal Control Area (TMA) operations by 2020. Option 2 – builds on Option 1 to provide a “Complete Regulatory Coverage to Enable Deployment of Operational Improvements in EATMN by 2020”. It requires all navigation functionalities that have been identified as sufficiently mature for implementation by 2020. Option 3 – “Extended Regulatory Coverage to Enable Long-term Evolution Towards Introduction of Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) by 2025”, builds upon Option 2 and provides the basis for 4D trajectory operations by 2025.

- 5 -


The overall preference for the proposed regulatory approach options was as follows:

Total Received Responses by Category

Prefer Option 16%

Prefer Option 32%

Propose another alternative

15%

None11%

Agree w ith Option 2 as recommended in the Draft

Regulatory Approach

66%

Prefer Option 1

Agree w ith Option 2 as recommended inthe Draft Regulatory Approach

Prefer Option 3


None

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Air

po

rt O

pe

rato

r (A

O)

Air

spa

ce U

ser

(AU

)

Civ

il A

via

tion

Au

tho

rity

(C

AA

)

EU

RO

CO

NT

RO

L B

od

y (E

CT

L)

Ge

ne

ral A

via

tion

(G

A)

Ind

ust

ry (

IND

)

Inte

rna

tion

al O

rga

nis

atio

n (

INT

)

Mili

tary

Au

tho

rity

(M

OD

)

Na

tion

al S

up

erv

iso

ry A

uth

ori

ty (

NS

A)

Oth

er

Se

rvic

e P

rovi

de

r (

AN

SP

)

Prefer Option 1

Agree with Option 2 as recommended in theDraft Regulatory Approach

Prefer Option 3


None

- 6 -


There was general support for the development of a Performance Based Navigation (PBN) IR that would define navigation requirements and functionalities in en-route, terminal airspace and approach for specific aircraft and operations.

Two thirds of the responses expressed a preference for Option 2 - the EUROCONTROL recommended option. Those responses came primarily from State authorities – CAAs and NSAs – as well as from ANSPs.

One quarter of the responses received proposed either a different option or had not expressed a preference for any option. Those responses were provided primarily from airspace users and industry stakeholders.

2.2.3 Decision on the Preferred Regulatory Approach Option

A stakeholder workshop will be held on 05 February 2013 with the following objectives:

To present and discuss the results of the formal consultation;

To address comments received during the formal consultation process and present and discuss relevant responses;

To outline the approach EUROCONTROL intends to take for the next steps.

As a result of the stakeholder comments received, and subject to further discussions to take place at the stakeholder workshop, EUROCONTROL currently anticipates that it would recommend to the European Commission that a modified Option 2, amended in line with relevant formal consultation comments, be taken forward as the basis for drafting a PBN IR. The main rationale for this decision is the level of support expressed for such an option.

2.3 SPECIFIC RESPONSES

2.3.1 Introduction

This section summarises the main comments that arose from the consultation on the draft RAD and provides proposed responses. Other comments, including those of a supportive nature, those correcting minor spelling or grammatical errors, those outside of the scope of the regulatory approach, and/or those not requiring a response have not been included for the sake of brevity. However, all comments submitted and the responses to them are included in the table at Annex C.

‘Key Issues’ are those that were seen to represent the ‘main’ issues arising from the consultation and that would need to be addressed as a matter of priority.

A number of points have been raised that require further analysis and assessment during the next steps of the development of the Mandate. These are foreseen to be addressed during the drafting of the IR and the extended regulatory impact assessment activities.

- 7 -


2.3.2 Key Issues

2.3.2.1 Global Harmonisation and Consistency

Comments

It was pointed out that regardless of the regulatory option to be chosen, interoperability requirements should be developed in a global perspective, in the same way as it is done in the international standardisation framework. It was felt that global interoperability of each option was not sufficiently addressed and that traceability and compliance with global standards should be established, including retention of ICAO standards terminology. It was further recommended that the text should emphasise the need for global coordination on PBN implementation, including the need for coordination with ICAO and the FAA.

It was suggested that consistency between the SES implementing rules and the EASA implementing rules needed to be established, that synchronisation between airborne equipage mandate and related certification material publication should be effective. In this context, it was requested that the RAD should present the plans for the EASA publications to enable PBN operations.

Response

It is agreed that global harmonisation and consistency are required. Global standards are being defined in RTCA SC-227 / EUROCAE WG-85, which will issue a new MASPS DO-236C / ED-75C in mid 2013.

The requirement to ensure consistency between the SES interoperability regulation and the EASA regulatory framework is fully recognised. Close coordination and cooperation with EASA is being maintained during the development of the draft IR. Cooperation is also foreseen for the development of all necessary PBN implementation guidance material and Means of Compliance.

Via the development of the required rules and standards in accordance with the EASA rulemaking programme and the appropriate coordination during the EU comitology2 process, the timely availability of the appropriate certification and operational standards should be ensured.

Coordination with ICAO, FAA and EUROCAE will be ensured.

Regulatory drafting will rely on the existing global industry standards as far as practicable when specifying the navigation performance requirements and functionalities. It is intended that the aim of a draft PBN IR would be to ensure that the relevant industry standards are used by stakeholders in order to ensure globally harmonised implementation of PBN operations.

2 Refers to the “comitology” procedure, in accordance with which, the European Commission is assisted in exercising its implementing powers by representatives of the EU Member States through committees. For more information on Comitology please refer to: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/comitology_en.htm

- 8 -

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/comitology_en.htm


Action

Close coordination with EASA, ICAO, FAA and EUROCAE will continue to be maintained during the development of the draft IR.

The draft RAD will be revised to further emphasise the importance of global harmonisation, coordination and consistency and to provide details on how these will be achieved.

2.3.2.2 Navigation Performance Requirements and Stakeholder Actions

Comments

It was felt that the performance requirements and functionalities were not clearly specified and that there was a need for more details and precision in the description of the foreseen stakeholder actions that would become the basis of the regulatory provisions of the future IR. It was suggested that targeting should be applied when defining the requirements.

It was argued that the concept of operations was not fully defined, in particular for the use of some functions such as RTA, FRT and TPO.

It was recommended that the future draft IR identify equipment standards for which clear guidance, specific required functionality, and approval processes are available.

Some stakeholders acknowledged that clarification was needed with regard to the identified navigation performance requirements and functionalities and their use in the various phases of flight. Clarification was also requested on the availability of regulatory material for aircraft certification and operational approval.

It was highlighted that limitations exist for some categories of aircraft, such as for example some GA aircraft, and it was recommended to adapt the requirements proportionally to the appropriate capabilities of those aircraft.

It was recognised that there was a need for synchronisation of actions of all stakeholders involved – both in terms of aircraft equipage and deployment of PBN routes procedures and systems on the ground – to guarantee that airborne capabilities are efficiently used in ATM operations and to ultimately bring benefits.

Some airspace users felt that there were not enough obligations foreseen for the ANSPs and recommended that these obligations be clearly defined in the IR.

Furthermore, some airspace users argued that Option 3 was not a real option due to the non-availability of data on which a well considered choice could be made. Option 3 seemed to be so poorly specified - there were no operational concept, no navigation specification, and no clear industry standard - that it should not have been included at all. It was considered that much of what was proposed was still in R&D as part of the SESAR activities and that it seemed extremely unlikely that ANSPs would have the necessary facilities in place to take advantage of any of the Option 3 functionality before 2025-2030 timeframe.

Response

The ICAO PBN Manual, which includes inter alia the Advanced RNP specification, provides detailed descriptions of the identified navigation performance requirements and functionalities.

- 9 -


It is intended to clearly define the requirements on all stakeholders in the IR. This will ensure unambiguous identification of obligations of the regulated parties.

It is accepted that concepts of operation for some functions need further redevelopment. It is recognised that availability of regulatory material for aircraft certification and operational approval needs to be ensured.

A number of technical issues require further analysis and assessment during the drafting of the IR and the extended regulatory impact assessment.

All potential stakeholder actions identified in the RAD - for both the air and the ground side - will be further developed and complemented as necessary and then be translated into obligations of the regulated parties in the draft IR.

Option 3 is aimed at enabling the introduction of the SESAR target concept - Steps 1 through 3. Aircraft capability to meet a single time constraint both in en-route and terminal airspace is foreseen in Step 1 ''Time-based operations'' of the European ATM Master Plan, Edition 2. This capability is seen as crucial for achieving one of the 6 SESAR Key Features - Traffic Synchronisation, based on the Essential Operational Changes ''i4D+CTA'' in TMA and ''Enhanced Decision Support Tools & Performance Based Nav''. The requirement to consider the RTA functionality is part of the EC Mandate and the ICB recommendation at the start of the Mandate development process. The navigation specification foreseen is Advanced RNP. The industry standard is EUROCAE ED-75B/RTCA DO-236B. Performance requirements do exist in the above-mentioned standards; however work is currently ongoing on revision/update of these documents. It is accepted that it is unlikely that ANSPs will be able to put in place all necessary facilities to take advantage of some of the Option 3 functionalities by 2025.

Action

The necessary clarifications will be provided and the description of the foreseen requirements will be revised.

The Advanced RNP specification will be made available to stakeholders as reference.

The limitations for some categories of aircraft are recognised and the requirements will be adapted proportionally to the appropriate capabilities of those aircraft.

Synchronisation of stakeholder actions is one of the main goals of the IR and will be pursued during the development of the draft IR.

Further analysis will be undertaken during the drafting of the IR and the extended regulatory impact assessment in order to address a number of technical issues.

2.3.2.3 Implementation Conditions

2.3.2.3.1 Implementation Timescales for Airborne Equipage and Deployment of ATS Routes and Procedures

Comments

Some stakeholders expressed a preference for delayed implementation timescales by 4 to 5 years, e.g. to the beginning of 2025. The rationale was that for the required aircraft

- 10 -


functionalities to be implemented by 2020, taking into consideration the 7-year notice convention of regulators to aviation industry, there would be very little time available to complete the tasks needed for this process, i.e. safety assessments, cost analysis and aircraft equipage. Moreover, manufacturers typically require a minimum of two years from the availability of a mature standard, accepted by the relevant regulators (FAA and EASA), to integrate the equipment on in-production aircraft models. This recommendation was also backed up by consideration of the current economic situation that companies are now facing which could bring an extra burden to them.

On the other hand, commercial airspace users expressed the view that deployment of PBN ATS routes and procedures as well as associated tools and systems had to take place around two years earlier than the retrofit deadline. i.e. 2018 for En-route and TMA environment, in order to gain benefit from early aircraft equipage.

With regard to deployment of RNP approaches, airspace users recommended that the date of 2020 be replaced by 2016 in conformity with ICAO resolution A37-11.

Response

Due account will be given to the fact that sufficient time needs to be allowed to stakeholders to achieve compliance. An amended Option 2 will be proposed with revised dates of applicability.

Regarding the deployment of RNP approaches, it is considered that a 2016 target date is not achievable for all instrument runway ends in Europe, due to the amount of effort required for implementation.

Action

The implementation timescales will be subject to further analysis and consideration during the drafting of the IR and the extended regulatory impact assessment.

2.3.2.3.2 Airspace of Applicability

Comments

There was a request to explain the meaning of the statement that "The draft IR may apply to more limited areas of airspace in the case of a phased deployment" and to indicate which areas of airspace were envisaged in this context.

Response

The statement regarding the airspace of applicability reflects the principle of targeting of the requirements. It implies that whilst the entire space in which SES legislation is applicable is envisaged to be covered, targeting will be applied when setting the requirements, e.g. to determine specific geographical areas, flight levels, TMAs and/or airports, based on specified criteria, where the most rigorous requirements would be placed, whilst allowing less demanding specifications in other areas.

Although the IR will be effective in all states where EU law is applicable, some requirements can be limited in their applicability. The matter will be further analysed during the drafting of the IR and the extended regulatory impact assessment.

- 11 -


Action

The implementation timescales, the applicability criteria for aircraft equipage and airspace of applicability will be subject to further analysis and consideration during the drafting of the IR and the extended regulatory impact assessment.

2.3.2.3.3 Applicability Criteria for Aircraft Equipage

Comments

It was stressed that based on the applicability criteria for airborne equipage – to be defined in the IR – various levels of equipage could be achieved, e.g. 70%, 80%, 90%. Typically ANSPs required around 90% of flights to be equipped in order to avoid mixed environment. This approach however was questioned by airspace users, who recommended that the concept of Best Equipped Best Served (BEBS) be implemented so that benefits from early aircraft equipage could be gained. In this context, IATA and AEA in their alternative proposal recommended different criteria for aircraft equipage which would further reduce the proportion of equipped flights in the initial years of application.

It was requested that EUROCONTROL specifically defines the applicability to helicopters in the draft IR and invite comments from the aviation community.

Response

With respect to mixed mode operation and the conflicting views on the required level of equipped flights, further work is required to detail the way the BEBS concept can be implemented in the EATMN. In that respect, targeting of requirements on the basis of detailed fleet analysis is seen as a means to facilitate the introduction of changes and to achieve the required benefits.

It is intended that the IR will not be applicable to helicopters.

Action

The applicability criteria for aircraft equipage will be subject to further analysis and consideration during the drafting of the IR and the extended regulatory impact assessment.

2.3.2.3.4 Airborne Exemption Policy Principles

Comments

It was argued that previous EUROCONTROL mandate exemption processes have caused difficulties to avionics and aircraft manufacturers and aircraft operators; therefore, it was recommended that in the PBN IR mandate exemption processes were clearly defined.

It was pointed out by GA stakeholders that for some models produced after 2000, including models still in production, the requirement for the retrofit of certain capabilities, such as "Advanced RNP (1 NM TSE)", may be impractical. It was recommended that EUROCONTROL should specifically invite comments on the draft IR regarding which models should be explicitly exempted from an equipment mandate including those produced after 2000.

- 12 -


It was felt that the regulatory options should include the requirement for a marginal level of exemptions to the full implementation of the whole set of functionalities required.

Response

It is recognised that the exemptions need to be as limited as possible. It is intended that exemptions only be granted where they have a minor effect on the volume of flights by equipped aircraft and where the effect can be expected to reduce overtime.

Action

The airborne exemption policy will be further addressed during the drafting of the IR and the necessary clarity will be provided. A detailed proposal regarding exemptions will be provided for consultation with stakeholders during the development of the draft IR.

2.3.2.4 Means of Compliance

Comments

It was considered that the existence of relevant EASA and FAA compliance material such as AMC and CS should be the driver for determining the implementation dates. It was pointed out that carriage of new avionics must only become mandatory after EASA has implemented a streamlined process for a) Approval / documentation / certification of all new onboard navigation equipment required for PBN. For instance, any approvals issued by the FAA must be valid automatically for flights / aircraft in the EASA member states. b) Training requirements for pilots. c) Administrative / Organisational / maintenance cost burden for the aircraft operator.

It was felt that since the requirements proposed in the draft RAD were based on the Advanced RNP navigation specification taken from the updated ICAO PBN Manual, Doc 9613, and modelled on FAA AC 90-105 (currently being updated to reflect the ICAO navigation specification), in the interest of international harmonisation, it was vital that this specification was the one reflected in the EASA CS-ACNS and AMC material.

It was argued that there should be an acknowledgment that the PBN IR was not specifying new requirements, in addition to those found in the ICAO Advanced RNP navigation specification, but facilitating application of existing modern aircraft capability by formalising a functional and performance framework. It was further suggested that, in so doing, this should avoid regulatory re-examination or at least minimise the burden on aircraft manufacturers in terms of compliance assessment for those aircraft that already had a demonstrated RNP capability.

It was recommended that SES rules should establish which PBN type of operation would be deployed in which airspace volumes and by when; whereas EASA rules should establish the "how", i.e. safety requirements, demonstration of compliance. It was expected that synchronisation between airborne equipage mandate and related certification material publication should be ensured.

Response

It is acknowledged that the availability of means of compliance material is a necessary condition for implementation actions. It is EASA’s intent in accordance with their Rulemaking Programme, to ensure that the certification and approval material will be available within a timely manner before the effective date of the IR.

- 13 -


It is EASA’s intent to transpose all of the navigation specification published in the draft 2012 edition of ICAO Doc 9613 into appropriate certification and operational approval standards to enable not only PBN operations within Europe but also global application.

In drafting the detailed draft IR requirements and the EASA airworthiness and operational standards due account will be taken to minimise the impact on OEM and operators with respect to existing approvals.

The requirement to ensure consistency between the SES interoperability regulation and the EASA regulatory framework is fully recognised in particular the establishment of “what, where, when” and the “how” requirements. Via the development of the required rules and standards in accordance with the EASA Rulemaking Programme and the appropriate coordination during the comitology process the timely availability of the appropriate certification and operational standards should be achieved.

Action

The draft RAD will be revised to reinforce the points raised by the comments.

2.3.2.5 Economic Impact Assessment

Comments

As a result of the assumption that aircraft older than 20 years in 2020 would be exempted, an 80% level of equipage in 2020 i.e., 20% non-equipage was projected. From an ANSP point of view, this would cause the service provider significant problems for airspace design and mixed operations, e.g. loss of efficiency; therefore, it was seen as a barrier for change. On the other hand, the airspace users proposed an aircraft exemption age of 17-15 years, rather than 20 years, in order to be able to use investments for 8 -10 years instead of 5 years. In that context, the BEBS concept was suggested to enable airspace users to decide on the need and time of retrofit, based on their own business case.

Concerns were expressed by GA stakeholders that the preliminary economic impact assessment ignored the potential disbenefit of access to airspace being heavily reduced or even completely blocked as a result of a PBN IR. It was recommended that the economic value of the operations under a variety of business models currently in operation be taken into account for the impact assessment.

It was argued that all costs should be taken into account in the assessment - costs incurred by regulators, costs of airspace re-design, environmental consultation.

It was pointed out that there was a need for a more detailed assessment of the costs and benefits, including confirmation of the assumptions applied as well as a presentation of a detailed breakdown of the estimated impact on the fleet per stakeholder group, before decisions could be made on exact functionalities to be included in the draft IR.

It was felt that a financial incentive scheme could be useful for all stakeholder groups, i.e. ANSPs, airports, and military stakeholders.

It was requested that a review be made of the GA fleet and cost data as well as the GA equipage levels, capabilities and associated assumptions, and that additional detail be

- 14 -


provided as part of the draft IR consultation. GA stakeholders provided a significant amount of information which would be useful for the review of these aspects.

Some doubt was expressed that the PBN IR could make a positive contribution to the achievement of all of the SES high-level objectives and network performance targets. Data provided was viewed as “nice promises”, but so far no hard data was provided that would be convincing for airspace users at this moment in time to invest in airborne avionics. Therefore, there was a request to provide compelling arguments through a CBA that would demonstrate that the PBN IR would contribute towards meeting SES objectives and targets.

It was noted that expected benefits from optimisation of the NAVAID infrastructure and reduced costs had been identified, but these cost saving expectations had not been factored into the CBA. However, the importance of these benefits should not be underestimated. It was recommended that the text be added to indicate that implementers should not dismiss NAVAID rationalisation as being of no consequence.

Response

There is a balance to be obtained between the requirements of the ANSPs and those of the aircraft operators. It is recognised that the aircraft operators will wish to obtain the maximum use from their investment in PBN avionics. However, reducing the aircraft age as suggested would reduce the proportion of flights by equipped aircraft making the mixed fleet more difficult to manage for the ANSPs. It is expected that procedures could be developed and implemented for a transition period during which a gradual increase of the proportion of equipped flights from a level of about 75-80% to a level of 90% could take place; therefore allowing early benefits from aircraft equipage to be realised.

It is not the intention that the PBN IR should result in some parts of the GA fleet being priced out of the market. Nor it is intended to block access to airspace to any category of airspace users. If evidence is available to show that this would be the effect, remedial measures could be proposed. The statement in section 6.2.5 is intended to indicate the value of a harmonised PBN IR relative to a range of various local regulations.

It is accepted that an estimate of all costs should be included in the assessment.

Section E 4.2.2 of Annex E to the draft RAD deals with this issue. If benefits can be allocated to user groups on the basis of the proportion of flight hours indicated in figure 7 of this annex, then commercial airlines would experience a large positive Net Present value (NPV), regional airlines would experience a small positive NPV, whilst GA would suffer a small net loss. The NPV values can be included in a revised annex.

It should be noted that financial incentives are presented as a possibility and that, at this stage, no decision has been made to implement incentives to support the IR. Moreover, because the IR will represent a legal requirement, financial incentives are not offered as an incentive to comply with the IR but to go beyond its scope, i.e. to implement more quickly. Finally, financial incentives are seen as being appropriate to commercial organisations but not to state owned bodies. In the case of airports, the immediate impact of the IR will be on the costs of the organisation providing ATM at the airport. This could be the national ANSP, a commercial contractor or the airport owner itself. The airport ANSP will be required to utilise PBN capabilities where these will lead to enhanced traffic flow at the airport but will not be required to implement unnecessary measures. Thus the case for offering financial incentives to airports is far from clear. Regarding military stakeholders, since military aircraft are exempted from the retrofit requirement, incentives would not be relevant for military aircraft. However, states must recognise that, if they wish to improve the quality of commercial air

- 15 -


navigation in their airspace, one of the costs may be to equip their state aircraft with avionics compatible with the requirements they impose on other users of the airspace.

The need to review the GA fleet and cost data, equipage levels, capabilities and associated assumptions, is recognised. Additional details will be provided as part of the draft IR consultation.

Performance-based navigation is one of the key enablers to improve the performance of the EATMN, along with other enablers in the areas of communication, surveillance, ATC and ATFCM. Although PBN may not contribute to all SES high level objectives and network performance targets, it has the potential to enable benefits most notably in the areas of flight efficiency, capacity and safety. The draft RAD does not intend to make promises; it provides an indication of the improvements that can be enabled by the IR. It is agreed that evidence should be provided to back up assertions. The recently issued second edition of the European ATM Master Plan includes a business case. However, as the Master Plan indicates, none of the anticipated SES benefits have been validated and thus there is, as yet, a shortage of 'hard data'. It is normal for the assessment of a new technology to be supported by tests and simulations and the PBN assessment has made best use of what information is available.

Regarding NAVAID infrastructure rationalisation, even if not part of the benefits case, it should be encouraged in whatever way possible.

Action

Detailed assessment of the costs and benefits, including as far as possible confirmation of the assumptions applied will be undertaken during the extended economic impact assessment.

Additional cost and benefit information will be sought in order to further detail the assessment.

The corresponding sections of the draft RAD will be reviewed and revised.

2.3.2.6 Safety Impact Assessment

Comments

It was pointed out that the detailed technical requirements should be expressed as acceptable means of compliance, i.e. Certification Specification or Community specification. It was argued that the Safety requirements resulting from the end-to-end safety assessment should be covered by the EASA rules at CS level and that only high level security requirements should be put at the level of the draft IR. It was felt that more detailed requirements should be identified at the level of the CS (Certification Specification or Community specification).

It was recommended that the safety assessment should be validated by EASA and that the issues and/or assumptions identified during the safety assessment for each of the proposed options should be related with the necessary EASA regulatory material.

It was suggested to assess whether a generic ANS-wide GNSS safety assessment needed to be performed at a European level. It was felt that such an activity would have to be led by EUROCONTROL.

- 16 -


A number of comments suggested specific improvements to the text to improve precision and readability.

Response

Safety requirements will be properly allocated within the available applicable regulatory frameworks. Full consistency and harmonisation will be ensured.

Validation by EASA is part of the process. Full consistency with EASA regulatory material will be ensured.

This point of the potential need for a generic ANS-wide GNSS safety assessment to be performed at European level will be subject to assessment during the drafting of the IR and the extended impact assessment.

Action

The corresponding sections of the draft RAD will be reviewed and revised. The extended safety impact assessment will further address the specific relevant points raised in the comments.

2.3.2.7 Civil-Military Coordination

Comment

Clarification was sought on the applicability of SES legislation to military stakeholders as well as on the categories of aircraft that would potentially be affected by the IR, e.g. new production transport type state aircraft.

The need for transition arrangements was pointed out – related to both aircraft equipage to take account of the procurement and technical constraints that military organisations face when confronted with new ATM, as well as accommodation of non-equipped flights by State aircraft by ATSPs. This was based on the fact that some State aircraft would never become PBN compliant.

The need for exemptions for State aircraft was recognised; it was recommended that exemptions only be granted for fighter aircraft, not for transport aircraft.

It was noted that no indication of military costs was given, not even a baseline cost.

Response

Civil-military aspects are proposed to be covered in the draft IR because civil-military coordination is an essential requirement of SES, recognised in the Interoperability Regulation and in line with the declaration of member States on military matters included in the framework regulation. Civil-military aspects have already been covered in a number of interoperability IRs (DLS, AGVCS, SPI, etc.). For new production transport type state aircraft, forward fit actions are expected to be implemented by the military, in consequence of PBN regulatory provisions. Nevertheless, forward fit must comprise not only new aircraft but also aircraft scheduled for major mid life upgrades. For other aircraft, compliance could be achieved on the basis of performance equivalence.

ATSPs will be requested to accommodate non equipped traffic as needed to enable unrestricted airspace access. The service provided and fall back procedures will depend on

- 17 -


the PBN functionality in question, as is the case for current practice in regards to B-RNAV and P-RNAV.

Exemptions are envisaged to be granted to transport aircraft only when out of service date is very close to the implementation date. Applicability dates for transport type aircraft could be later than those for civil aircraft providing sufficient time to cope with longer military procurement cycles, fleet size, technical constraints and multiple variants.

It is proposed to exempt military aircraft from retrofit requirements. For the purposes of the impact assessment, it is assumed that in the baseline case (no PBN IR) aircraft operators, including the military, would still equip new aircraft with suitable PBN avionics. Therefore the implementation of the IR would impose no incremental costs on the military. Military equipage will thus be on a voluntary basis and not as a consequence of the IR.

Action

The corresponding sections of the draft RAD will be reviewed and revised accordingly. The extended impact assessment will further address the specific relevant points raised in the comments.

2.3.2.8 Impact on General Aviation Stakeholders

Comments

It was pointed out that in the case of GA/AW, there was likely to be a lack of suitable equipment to meet the RNP1 requirements and all foreseen functionalities, that there would be, huge and unfeasible cost barriers and that there were a large number of IFR aircraft with many different avionics fitments.

It was suggested that text should be added to clarify that availability of solutions may be an issue for GA/AW due to certain segments of the market not yet being served with appropriate equipment.

It was felt that the maturity and availability of the airborne functionalities were overstated, particularly with respect to business aviation and general aviation aircraft. Specific applicability of requirements to the GA fleet was recommended, in line with the characteristics and capabilities of this population of aircraft.

It was suggested that in the Economic and Efficiency Impact Assessment, cost of development, installation and certification of the proposed Option 2 functionalities were underestimated for business aviation and general aviation aircraft. Further, the Annex E analysis was unclear as to the types of aircraft considered as "business/turboprop" and those considered as "general aviation". Moreover, detailed information was provided on all aspects related to capabilities, feasibility and costs of potential upgrade and classification of GA fleet. It was recommended that EUROCONTROL should revise the Economic and Efficiency Impact to address these comments to clarify the aircraft classifications and update the costs associated with complying with the proposed Option 2 functionalities.

Response

It is recognised that the availability of solutions for GA/AW is an issue. The applicability criteria for aircraft equipage will be further detailed to determine to which classes of aircraft the IR will apply.

- 18 -


The types of aircraft included within the categories can be made available. EUROCONTROL welcomes the opportunity to work with avionics manufacturers to improve the cost estimates. It is intended that proportionality be applied when setting requirements on GA operators consistent with the capabilities compliant with E/TSO-C146 requirements.

Action

The draft RAD will be amended accordingly to reflect the points that were raised.

Consideration will be given to the possibility to excluding GA aircraft from requirements outside of the approach phase of flight. A detailed description of requirements and breakdown of impact on GA will be provided taking into account the recommendations given.

2.3.2.9 Reversionary Mode of Operation

Comments

It was suggested that it should be within the scope of the PBN IR to regulate the reversionary navigation means in case of GNSS outages - both scheduled and unscheduled. It was recommended that Section 5.2.4 of the draft RAD, which addressed the case of loss of the GNSS Signal in Space, should specify that the ATC contingency procedures shall be established in a harmonised manner by the ANSPs. It was considered of utmost importance that the same procedures were implemented across the EATMN. Some stakeholders recommended considering the use of RNAV 1 as the reversionary mode to RNP 1.

Response

It is acknowledged that within the Mandate development, further analysis of the possible contingency procedures needs to be undertaken, with a view to harmonise as much as possible the requirements for reversionary mode of operations in case of GNSS outage. It is agreed that guidance material would be needed in order to ensure that the contingency procedures are consistently applied across the EATMN to enable seamless operation to the maximum extent possible.

Action

Assessment of the possible application of the RNAV 1 specification as reversionary mode of operation to A-RNP/RNP1 will be made during the development of the draft IR and the extended regulatory impact assessment. Other possibilities will also be examined.

2.3.2.10 Applicability of the SES Legislation to Providers outside EU

Comments

It was pointed out that the draft RAD did not address the issue of the applicability of SES regulations provisions to the GPSSPS. This point was considered to be of utmost importance for NSAs as, according to the ICAO GNSS Manual, States shall approve GNSS. Clarification was deemed necessary with regard to the extent that the SES regulations apply to GPS and the required steps a State should follow in order to approve operations based on GNSS.

- 19 -


Response

The point of the applicability of SES to GPS/GNSS is under consideration at present. The matter was discussed with the SSC in 2010 and is likely to be discussed further in early 2013.

Following recent ICAO ANC 12 conclusions, EUROCONTROL is discussing with the EC and EASA how to introduce a waiver in the applicability of the SES to GNSS core-constellations (e.g. GPS, Galileo, GLONASS and Beidou). A paper addressing this subject could be presented to SSC in 2013. This action could help in having a common European approach regarding the States acceptance of GPS/GNSS as primary means.

Action

The matter should be clarified before PBN enters into force, i.e. before 2015.

2.3.2.11 Availability of Harmonised High Quality Aeronautical Data

Comments

It was stated that the non-availability of high quality aeronautical data in support of PBN was not mentioned in the draft RAD. It was argued that high quality digital data was critical to the implementation of PBN and that this crucial dependency must be pointed out. Furthermore, it was pointed out that appropriate information assurance and in particular information security policies would need to be applied to ensure safe information exchanges.

As onboard navigation databases would rely heavily on digital aeronautical information it was recommended that this dependency be expressed in the draft RAD.

Response

It is recognised that availability of harmonised high quality aeronautical data and information and its secure exchange is of paramount importance for the implementation of PBN.

Action

The draft RAD will be amended accordingly. Furthermore, this subject will be considered and analysed during the extended impact assessments and will be captured at least in the justification material attached to the draft IR.

3. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

In view of the wide overall support for Option 2 received from stakeholders and taking into account the alternative options that were proposed by some stakeholders, EUROCONTROL intends to recommend to the European Commission an amended Regulatory Approach Option 2, which will be modified as follows:

The description of the aircraft functionalities will be revised. They will be based on the following ICAO PBN Specifications:

o Advanced RNP

o RNP APCH

- 20 -


o RNP 1

Clear identification of actions required by ANSPs will be given, e.g.:

o Deployment of RNP Approach procedures;

o Re-design of the ATS route network;

o Deployment of ATC systems and tools such as AMAN, DMAN, Data Link, SWIM to support PBN operations.

It is considered that the Time of Arrival Control (TOAC) functionality, along with the associated ATC tools and other enablers needed for introduction of time-based and trajectory-based operations, such as AMAN, A/G data link, G/G communication, SWIM, etc, will not be mature enough to be mandated through an IR before 2028. Therefore it is not intended to include the TOAC function in the modified Option 2. The subject, however, will be further analysed and assessed during the second phase of the Mandate development in order to formulate appropriate recommendations to the European Commission in the Final Report.

FRT will be retained for application above FL195; requirements will be targeted in terms of the geographical area of applicability and proportional with respect to the categories of affected aircraft.

The General Aviation fleet will be subject to detailed analysis based on the following categories of aircraft:

o Single-piston engine;

o Dual/multi-piston engine;

o Turbo-props;

o Jets.

General aviation aircraft will be subject to RNP-1 Specification requirements with RF leg in TMA only, plus RNP APCH capabilities. The intention will be that small GA airplanes are excluded from PBN mandate equipage outside the approach environment. The capabilities provided by ETSO-146(C) compliant equipage could be considered sufficient for the objectives of the PBN IR, where appropriate. This will be subject to further detailed analysis during the extended regulatory impact assessment

It is proposed that helicopters be excluded from requirements in the draft PBN IR.

Applicability dates will be further analysed with a view to synchronise them with the timescales of the EU Performance Scheme and the ICAO ASBUs. This may mean amending the applicability dates for the en-route phase of flight to around 2023, and for deployment of RNP approaches to 2018, while keeping the applicability date for introduction of airspace changes in TMA to 2020. The applicability dates will be specified as a result of the extended regulatory impact assessment.

Proportionality and targeting will be pursued by establishing criteria for selecting specific airports at which deployment of PBN procedures to be mandated in order to maximise benefits and minimise costs, e.g. airports with certain level of flight movements per year.

Stakeholder actions will be further revised and detailed.

The following table illustrates the possible presentation of the regulatory approach option.

- 21 -


- 22 -

PROPOSAL FOR MODIFIED OPTION 2

PHASE OF FLIGHT

En-Route Terminal Approach

Aircraft

Date of applicability of certification and

operational approval for aircraft and implementation for Service Provider

Above FL195 Below FL195Service Provision Aircraft Service Provision Aircraft

Service Provision

2018

2020

2023

A-RNP +

FRT

RNP1 +

RNAV Holding

Airspace designed to optimise flight efficiency. Free routes

airspace enabling user preferred trajectories.

High density airspace re-designed for closer space routes and route conformance monitoring tools implemented to manage traffic

Use of altitude constraints

RNP1 +

RF leg +

RNAV Holding

Provide RNP SIDs and STARs Use of altitude constraints Optimise TMA flows to provide: Capacity Efficiency Access CCO/CDAs based on positive CBA

APV (either Baro or

SBAS)

RNP APCH (APV where appropriate subject to operational needs but LNAV as a minimum)


Note: Advanced RNP is the ICAO navigation specification published in the PBN Manual (Doc 9613). The functionalities included as requirements are: RNP 1, RF leg, RNAV Holding and TPO, with mandatory carriage of GNSS. Therefore, in this table, Advanced RNP is de facto the ICAO specification. Optional functions such as FRT are optional extras in the PBN Manual, which for the intended European operational concept, are included as mandatory requirements in the target operation of some scenarios.

- 23 -


- 24 -

ANNEX A LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS THAT PROVIDED COMMENTS TO THE FORMAL CONSULTATION

The stakeholders who provided comments on the “Draft Regulatory Approach for Performance Based Navigation (PBN)” document are listed below:

Country Organisation Contact Name

AUSTRIA (AT) Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology

Franz NIRSCHL

AUSTRIA (AT) AUSTRO CONTROL Florian BUCHMANN

BELGIUM (BE) Association of European Airlines Vincent DE VROEY

BELGIUM (BE) European Business Aviation Association

Pedro VICENTE AZUA

BELGIUM (BE) European Cockpit Association Loïc MICHEL

BELGIUM (BE) International Air Carriers Association Erik MOYSON

BELGIUM (BE) International Air Transport Association Robert M. TOD

BULGARIA (BG) Bulgarian Air Traffic Services Authority Alexander VITKOV

CZECH REPUBLIC (CZ) Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic

Tomas DUKA

DENMARK (DK) Danish Transport Authority Bo FELDBERG

DENMARK (DK) NAVIAIR Hans Christian HOLST

FINLAND (FI) Finnish Transport Safety Agency Trafi Kari SIEKKINEN

FRANCE (FR) Direction de la Sécurité Aéronautique d'Etat (DSAE)

Thierry BUSIN

FRANCE (FR) AIRBUS Joelle MONSO

FRANCE (FR) Dassault Aviation Serge LEBOURG

FRANCE (FR) Honeywell Aerospace Stephane MARCHE

FRANCE (FR) Direction Generale de l'Aviation civile Philippe BIZET

GERMANY (DE) Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs

Nancy SICKERT

GERMANY (DE)

German Air Navigation Services – Headquarters – on behalf of DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH, Lufthansa German Airlines, Condor Flugdienst GmbH and AOPA-Germany

Andrea GARTEMANN

GERMANY (DE) AFSBw - Amt fur Flugsicherung der Bundeswehr

Matthias GRALL

GERMANY (DE) Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs

Bodo HEINZL

GREECE (GR) Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority Nikolaos PROIOS

IRELAND (IE) Irish Aviation Authority (Head Office) James O'SULLIVAN

ITALY (IT) Italian Company for Air Navigation Services

Alessandro GHILARI

ITALY (IT) Italian Civil Aviation Authority Luca Valerio FALESSI


Country Organisation Contact Name

LATVIA (LV) Civil Aviation Agency of Latvia Maris CERNONOKS

LATVIA (LV) Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme Vadim STROITELEV

NETHERLANDS (NL) Ministry of Defence of the Netherlands John VAN BOMMEL

NETHERLANDS (NL) Ministry of Transport and Water Management - Directorate Gen. of Civil Aviation and Maritime Affairs

Robin VALKENBURCHT

NORWAY (NO) Civil Aviation Authority - BODO Arne LINDBERG

NORWAY (NO) AVINOR AS Einar Stein HAUGEN

POLAND (PL) Civil Aviation Office Andrzej GIEROCZYNSKI

POLAND (PL) Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA)

Piotr CZESNIK

PORTUGAL (PT) Instituto Nacional de Aviacao Civil Bruno ANJOS

PORTUGAL (PT) Air Navigation Services of Portugal Joao MATA

ROMANIA (RO) Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority Claudia VIRLAN

SERBIA (RS) Civil Aviation Directorate of the Republic of Serbia

Gordana KNEZEVIC

SLOVAKIA (SK) Letove prevadzkove sluzby Arpad EGRI

SPAIN (ES) Ministry of Defence - Air Force HQ Juan Manuel PABLOS CHI

SPAIN (ES) Air Safety State Agency Pablo ULIBARRI-RAMOS

SPAIN (ES) AENA Aitor ALVAREZ

SWEDEN (SE) LFV Group - Air Navigation Services of Sweden

Helen ERIKSON

SWEDEN (SE) Swedish Transport Agency Ann-Christine SPORRONG

SWEDEN (SE) Swedavia Anders LEDIN

SWITZERLAND (CH) FABEC Switzerland Thomas BUCHANAN

SWITZERLAND (CH) Federal Office for Civil Aviation Peter IMHOF

UNITED KINGDOM (GB) Civil Aviation Authority Phil ROBERTS

UNITED KINGDOM (GB) NATS Robert WESTERBERG

UNITED KINGDOM (GB) PPL/IR Europe Vasa BABIC

UNITED KINGDOM (GB) International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

Michael ERB

UNITED STATES (US) Garmin International Clayton BARBER

UNITED STATES (US) General Aviation Manufacturers Association

Jens C. HENNIG

UNITED STATES (US) FAA-Federal Aviation Administration Kevin BRIDGES

- 25 -


- 26 -

ANNEX B TABLE OF STAKEHOLDER PREFERENCES

ENPRM/12-004 ON THE DRAFT REGULATORY APPROACH FOR THE DRAFT INTEROPABILITY IMPLEMENTING RULE ON PERFORMANCE BASED NAVIGATION (PBN)

Preference Option 1 2 3 Other None Reasons for the Choices and/or Explanations of the Alternative Proposals Organisation X Austria, AUSTRO

CONTROL X The option 2 is in accordance with Austrian airspace policy and the implementation is feasible in a realistic time

frame. Austria Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology NSA

X Our main concern with the options description in the PBN proposal is that there is no specification of the functionalities and certification requirements for the concepts proposed. It is essential to have clear descriptions of the specific aircraft functionalities required for enabling almost all the concepts included in the different options. We think it would be very helpful if the proposal would make reference to the current certifications for the aircraft including EASA and FAA published regulations. For this reason we are unable to support any of the proposed options but rather we would like to propose you to take into account the Business Aviation sector realities mentioned in this paper.

The European Commission and FAA have confirmed LPV SBAS as precision approaches. EBAA considers that LPV SBAS precision approaches should be considered as a functionality in its own right and not as part of the APV concept. LPV SBAS precision approaches are a fundamental part of of the PBN concept, increasing safety and reducing cost. Regional and low cost airlines, Business Aviation, General Aviation and helicopter operations are waiting for its quick deployment around Europe.

LPV SBAS deployment strategy includes the principles of interoperability between LPV GBAS precision approaches and LPV SBAS precision approaches. We consider that we should promote the publication of a LPV SBAS CAT 1 approach each time a LPV GBAS CAT2/3 approach will be published.

It is absolutely essential that the PBN functionalities are harmonised and synchronised with the global PBN concept. The certification requirements in Europe must therefore be identical to those in other regions and especially to the requirements in USA. It is also very important that the GNSS resilience and back up are coordinated with USA so that both sides of the Atlantic have the same PBN concept.

EBAA has always supported the development of EGNOS and we therefore call on both the European Commission and Eurocontrol to give EGNOS a central role for the entire PBN mandate similarly to the role given to WAAS by FAA.

Belgium EBAA

X Based on available data, only Option 1 can currently be supported: i.e. make best use of what is currently installed on aircraft, e.g. PBN project Greek Islands

Belgium, IACA



Preference Option 1 2 3 Other None Reasons for the Choices and/or Explanations of the Alternative Proposals Organisation X

Belgium, IATA

X

Belgium, AEA

X The European Cockpit Association is in favour of option 2.

Although option 3 would be more in line with the SESAR ConOps development steps, the necessary technical features related to Time Based Operations need to be examined. Also a Cost Benefit analysis would be needed and it is not clear up to now if the aircraft would be able to support multiple time constraints.

This leads ECA to the conclusion that option 2 is more favourable.

Belgium, European Cockpit Association

X After detail analysis of the Draft Interoperability implementing rule on Performance Based Navigation SES/IOP/PBN/REGAP/0.4 BULATSA agrees with Option 2.

BULATSA considers Option 2 as well balanced in terms of efforts and deliverables. It is recognised as the most realistic way forward for PBN implementation.

Bulgaria, BULATSA

X Document contains a lot of information, which has been already published in other documents or strategies and plans. Therefore we recommend shortening the document to make it more readable and easier to understand the main objective of this document.

Czech Republic, ANS CR

X On the basis of the analysis conducted and the results of the preliminary impact assessment, Option 2 is considered to be the option that would provide the highest potential for achieving overall net benefit to the EATMN.

Denmark, NAVIAIR

X

Denmark, Danish Transport Authority

X Option number 2 would be preferable.

Finland, Finnish Transport Safety Agency

X As the concept of operations does not appear to be fully defined, in particular for the use of RTA (option 2 & 3) but also of RNAV holding, Tactical Parallel Offset, FRT above FL 195; Airbus recommends that further work is carried out in close cooperation with SESAR to complete the definition of the concept and the safety assessment in a manner consistent with the SESAR deployment plan before any decision is made (option selection & date).

France, AIRBUS

- 27 -




The subject is not enough mature today.

European PBN Implementation Rules must be harmonised with US ones before any publication.

See Dassault-Aviation general comment in attachment and FAA policy in support (PBN vision).

PBN vision for Europe must be simple and understandable by all stakeholders especially the users. We recommend that implementation of PBN in Europe be based on the avionics known installed and certified on the aircraft meaning based on LPV, RNAV, RNP1 and, RNP 0.3 with RF leg even on RNP AR, and that this implementation be harmonised with the US one.

France, DASSAULT

X France supports the option 2

France, DGAC

X Due to budget and technical constraints, State aircraft operated by France will not have all the functionalities required by option 1 by 2020. On a longer term, compliance with option 1 functionalities will be sought for the new transport State aircraft programmes contracted later than the date of entry into force of this PBN rule. Thus option 1 is supported by the French Ministry of Defence.

The French MoD wants to ensure that freedom of access to the SES airspace (En-route, terminal airspace final approach) in GAT will not be modified by the PBN rule. Therefore it must be clearly stipulated in the PBN draft that State aircraft not equipped with such functionalities will be accommodated in the future Advanced RNP1 airspace without restrictions.

France, DSAE/DIRCAM

X Option 2 in our opinion strikes the necessary balance towards establishing a definitive path in the direction of the desired end state where all stakeholders are gaining the benefits envisioned throughout the development of the PBN concept, particularly the economic and efficiency improvements outlined in the referenced section. This option establishes a foundation for 4D trajectory management operations which can be extended and enhanced as aircraft solutions become more available and business cases mature.

France, Honeywell Aerospace

X The conclusion that option 2 is considered as the most appropriate basis for the development of the draft IR should be amended by a remark, leaving room for a staged approach.

Germany, AFSBw

X

Germany, DFS on behalf of DFS, Lufthansa German Airlines, Condor Flugdienst GmbH and AOPA-Germany

- 28 -




The proposed option 2 appears conclusive and acceptable. Germany, German NSA

X The draft regulation proposed refers to all European TMAs being mandated (5.2.1) with an airborne functional equipage which is impossible or financially unfeasible (given current market solutions) for a large proportion of the airframes currently flying IFR in Europe. Whilst GA aircraft bear the brunt, from discussions taking place in the UK, we are far from the only users to have significant issues with the so-called “minimum” approach posited here. Specifically:

- Baro-VNAV costs a disproportionate amount ($100k+). If VNAV is only needed for SIDS and STARS, then only regulate it for SIDS and STARS. If by VNAV you also mean geometric VNAV via GNSS, show how this will be interoperable with Baro-VNAV solutions. At present, we have concerns that it will not be.

- RF capability to enable close route spacing needs to show that non-coupled solutions are possible (e.g. it can be hand-flown using guidance). At present, that is not clear. The justification that it would reduce the cost of gaining RNP AR APCH approval (E.2.6) does not seem in line with the rest of the text.

- The inclusion of OPMA (Onboard Performance Monitoring and Alerting) may add significant cost dependent on the regulatory approach. For example, if the alert needs to be part of the pilot’s forward view, any retrofit or forward fit solutions in central consoles would become redundant. This does not seem to have been appreciated.

- Requirements for reversion do not seem to have been taken into account. These may drive functionality and cost, and therefore must be addressed. For example, reversion to RNP could require DME/DME, reversion to RNAV could require VOR/DME RNAV, both of which add inordinate cost. This impacts the cost-benefit.

We recognise that the alternative expressed in 6.3 of limiting the mandate to aircraft over a certain MTOW is likely to not be satisfactory from a network benefits perspective since it would lead to on-going mixed equipage and the need for conventional routes.

We therefore propose an implementing rule based on routes, not airspace. This is consistent with the equitable access concept enshrined in national legislation, ICAO performance goals, and the Single European Sky ATM performance objectives defined within the SESAR programme. Design concepts should be developed where SIDS and STARs consistent with Option 1 can be implemented alongside SIDS and STARs utilising RNP1 with geometric VNAV or without vertical constraints.

We further propose a performance-based approach, which links the necessary level of navigation equipage to the airspace requirements. Not all airspace will require very closely spaced routes, particularly if this then limits the aircraft that may fly in that airspace.

Placing a requirement on all European TMAs is not justified and will have a severe economic impact. GA contributes around 1/10 the value to the economy that air transport does in Europe (based on an extrapolation

Germany, IAOPA Europe

- 29 -



Preference Option 1 2 3 Other None Reasons for the Choices and/or Explanations of the Alternative Proposals Organisation

of UK government figures). Whilst the PBN-IR options as they stand in European TMA would give air transport slightly less delays and more direct routes, for GA it would lead to the closure of many businesses, reduce the options for personal transport, and lead to a significant reduction in the contribution to the economy. None of this is discussed or considered in the material provided with the draft PBN-IR. A breakdown of user groups needs to be urgently undertaken to understand the impact properly.

At present therefore, this is not “performance-based” navigation, but rather a hard mandate of a top-end solution with little understanding of impact. It cannot be supported in its current form.

X Germany supports the need for a harmonisation of European PBN developments, including appropriate guidance material to face global PBN standards in Europe's congested airspace.

The development of a PBN IR must be in line with ICAO documentation (including ICAO phraseology) as well as coordinated with the drafting process of necessary guidance material by EASA (and/or EUROCONTROL).

As PBN is a very complex topic impacting all civil and military stakeholders, Germany recommends a close collaboration between EUROCONTROL and EASA to develop a full size picture of PBN implementation guidance material.

Germany, Ministry of Transport

X Option 2 is preferred as it enables effective and efficient provision of HANSP services, ensuring seamless operation within the European ATM Network, enabling the developments foreseen at national level, as well as, at the provisioned BLUE MED FAB level.

Greece, HCAA

X Ireland, IAA

X Italy, ENAV

X We support the regulation - Option 2 is the preferred one.

Option 2 guarantees a total system approach to PBN implementation.

Italy, ENAC

X Taking into account the European ATM Master Plan Latvian CAA has assessed an option 2 as the most useful and flexible choice for the NEFAB states (including Latvia). Our partners within the NEFAB have the same opinion.

Latvia, CAA/NEFAB

X Option 2 is the most reasonable taking into account current fleet equipage and navigation applications supported by.

Látvia, Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (Latvian ANSP)

X The Netherlands, Ministry of Defence

- 30 -




The Netherlands, Ministry of Transport

X After studying the Draft Doc, National PBN Implementation plan, and consulting with AVINOR ATM/CNS ANSP, we do agree with Option 2.

Norway, CAA

X

Norway, AVINOR

X

Poland, CAA

X

Poland, PANSA

X The option 2 is acceptable but would be improved with amendments

Portugal, INAC

X We agree with option 3 with changing milestones set forth below

Portugal, NAV PORTUGAL

X

Romania, ROMANIAN CAA

X As the Option 2 is considered to be the one that would most likely provide the greatest potential for achieving overall net benefit to the EATMN by 2020 and SES performance targets, allowing the introduction of new functionalities based on harmonised criteria and enabling additional benefits in the en-route phase, it has been considered as the most appropriate for the development of draft interoperability Implementing Rule on PBN.

The only concern that we would like to emphasize relates to state aircraft capability regarding advance RNP and airborne functionalities involved in the proposed timeline, that are going to be part of national PBN policy, as well as already recognized budget constraints in this domain.

Republic of Serbia, CAA

X

Spain, AENA

X

Spain, AESA

X

Spain, SPANISH AIR FORCE

X

Sweden, LFV

X Swedavia supports option 2 and would like to stress the importance of implementation of PBN. The introduction of the coming PBN regulation will definitely be an important enabler for the fulfilment of the intentions of SES legislation. Having already introduced PBN final approach procedures (RNP-AR) the experience so far has led to major improvements of aviation's environmental performance.

Sweden, Swedavia AB

- 31 -



Preference Option 1 2 3 Other None Reasons for the Choices and/or Explanations of the Alternative Proposals Organisation X Sweden,

SWEDISH TRANSPORT AGENCY

X

Switzerland, FOCA

X Option 2 is the preferred option for our organisation

Switzerland, Skyguide

X Slovak Republic, LPS SR

X With traffic growth (STATFOR and 2013 NATS en-route plc (NERL) Service & Investment Plan (SIP)), both indicating traffic only reaching 2007/2008 levels towards the end of this decade, the proposed introduction of reduced route spacing through the implementation of Advanced RNP across the whole of EU airspace, is seen as unjustified. Rather than propose an alternative en-route navigation application, a delay is preferred with introduction from 2025 and linked to Reference Period 4. For Reference Period 3 (2020), we propose that RNP1 with RF be required in those terminal airspace blocks containing airports greater than 70 000 IFR air transport movements per year, again linked to the Performance Plan.

Please note: the majority of comments are addressed against the Regulatory Approach document as this document accurately summarises the issues from the Annexes.

United Kingdom, UK CAA

X The Draft Regulatory Approach is incomplete and on this basis we vigorously oppose the Options or any attempt to progress decision-making without an appropriate impact assessment.

The economic analysis simply does not attempt to estimate the cost or impact on airspace users by segment. There is a lot of detail on system-wide benefits. However, there are more fundamental principles at stake. Airspace must be open to all users on reasonable and proportionate terms.

All three of the Options, and 2 & 3 in particular, are very likely to effectively exclude a significant segment of General Aviation operators (i.e. in lighter or older aircraft) through either the prohibitive cost or physical impossibility of conforming to the requirements.

It is not acceptable to look at the system as a single block and evaluate total cost benefits, ignoring the possibility that a segment of users may be totally excluded.

When a reasonable, segmented analysis of impacts is conducted, we will happily respond further.

United Kingdom, PPL/IR Europe

- 32 -




NATS cannot declare a preference for any option at this time because we feel there are many uncertainties with elements of all three options, which we have highlighted in the attached comments. We would suggest that these uncertainties are addressed for all stakeholders before progressing a particular rulemaking option any further.

United Kingdom, NATS

X Recommend the regulatory approach and associated guidance materials concerning operational approvals for Advanced RNP account for alternative approaches to implementation by other States/regions.

Specifically, in order for European operators to operate on Advanced-RNP procedures with scalable accuracies outside of Europe, the home State National Aviation Authority (NAA) will need to specify whether the operator is approved to conduct such operations.

Consideration for other optional types of operations/applications and functionalities not invoked for European implementation should likewise be addressed.

United States, FAA

X GAMA generally supports the development of a Performance Based Navigation (PBN) capability mandate that defines navigation requirements and functionalities in en-route, terminal airspace and approach for specific aircraft and operations. However, specific consideration and changes must be made by Eurocontrol in the development on the draft implementing Regulation with specific consideration of both maturity of the proposed required capabilities and the applicability to type of aircraft, including retrofit, as well as operations per the following comments.

United States, GAMA

X

United States, Garmin

- 33 -


1.

- 34 -

ANNEX C TABLE OF RECEIVED COMMENTS

The following table details all the comments received as part of the formal consultation on the draft Regulatory Approach Document for PBN, and it cross-refers each comment to an appropriate response within the SOR document.

2. The table headings are as follows:


# § No Comment Reason(s) for Comment Proposed Change/Text Ref § No

SOR Disposal Response Organisation

a) The first column refers to the unique number assigned to the comment during the review process.

b) The ‘§ No’ column cross-refers to the relevant paragraph number in the draft Regulatory Approach Document for PBN.

c) The ‘Comment’ and ‘Reason(s) for Comment’ columns capture the responses from the ‘Comment’ and ‘Reason(s) for Comment’ fields of the Consultation Response Sheets.

d) The ‘Proposed Change/Text’ column captures the text from the ‘Proposed Change/Text’ field of the Consultation Response Sheet.

e) The ‘Reference § No SOR’ column cross-refers to the relevant section of the SOR. Note - If a comment does not require a detailed response because a proposed change to the text in the draft Regulatory Approach Document has been accepted, reference is just made in this column to the general remarks in paragraph 2.3.1 in the main body of the document.

f) The ‘Disposal’ column provides information about the way the received comment was treated.

g) The ‘Response’ column provides the detailed response to the comment.

h) The ‘Organisation’ column identifies the source of the comment.


- 35 -


# § No Comment Reason(s) for Comment Proposed

Change/Text

Ref § No


1. 1.3 Enclosure 1 It has to be ensured that stakeholders like ICAO, EUROCAE, EASA, ... are involved in the development

It is necessary to consider requirements from stakeholders like ICAO, EUROCAE, EASA... with regard to PBN

2.3.2.1 Accepted Close coordination and cooperation with EASA is maintained during the development of the implementing rule. Coordination with ICAO and EUROCAE is ensured.

Germany German NSA

2. Section 10.1 A new specific objective should be added to the current list with an extra bullet. This new objective is: Incorporate the civil-military interoperability requirements necessary to facilitate military operations and accommodate State aircraft.

This new objective is necessary to ensure that the future IR will take into account the requirements from all the airspace users, defining a mixed-mode environment. It is in line with the section 9.5 of the same document titled "Impact on Civil-Military Organisation". Specifically the second paragraph: "The need to accommodate State aircraft flying GAT/IFR on the basis of seamless interoperability was justified by the need to reduce segregation and limit ATC workload by minimising special handling and exemptions."

See comment above. The new objective is: Incorporate the civil-military interoperability requirements necessary to facilitate military operations and accommodate State aircraft.

2.3.2.7 Noted That objective was envisaged since the beginning and will be considered during the IR drafting.

Spain Spanish Air Force

3. 11 Airbus recommendations: As the concept of operations does not appear to be fully defined, in particular for the use of RTA (option 2 & 3) but also of RNAV holding, Tactical Parallel Offset, FRT above FL 195, Airbus recommends that further work is carried out in close cooperation with SESAR to complete the definition of the concept and the safety assessment in a manner consistent with the SESAR deployment plan before any decision is made (option selection & date).

Recommendations. 2.3.2.2 Partially Accepted

Concept is clearly defined for the use of a target time of arrival in addition to a CTOT, which is intended to provide more clarity to operators about the restriction in the network and to provide more means to the operator to arrive more accurately at

France AIRBUS


- 36 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


the ATFCM restriction. Having aircraft to comply more accurately with flow management restrictions will lead to higher declared capacity which might reduce restrictions overall. RNAV holding is clearly defined. It allows aircraft to hold over an RNAV waypoint. FRT is being investigated in SESAR WP 4.7.3.

4. 11.2 "On the basis of the analysis conducted and the results of the preliminary impact assessment, Option 2 is considered to be the option that would provide the highest potential for achieving overall net benefit to the EATMN. This approach would allow the introduction of new functionalities in the SES airspace based on harmonised criteria and as such is considered to be the most appropriate option to take forward as a basis for the development of the draft IR." France supports the option 2 but, why do we need in this IR Advanced RNP navigation specification?

It is proposed to define rather the functions required (e.g. RNP1(1NM TSE), RNP APCH with APV, RNAV holdings, TPO (if confirmed), RF and FRT functions, Capability to meet a single time constraint based on current avionics and then to check if this is consistent with a given navigation specification suitable to ensure the option 2.

2.3.2.2 Accepted Advanced RNP bundles a set of aircraft functionalities needed to enable the expected benefits. These are for example the RF path terminator and performance monitoring and alerting. Also Advanced RNP is specified for all phases of flight which will simplify operational approvals.

France DGAC


- 37 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


5. 11.2 Recommendations

The European Cockpit Association is in favour of option 2. Although option 3 would be more in line with the SESAR ConOps development steps, the necessary technical features related to Time Based Operations need to be examined. Also a Cost Benefit analysis would be needed and it is not clear up to now if the aircraft would be able to support multiple time constraints. This leads ECA to the conclusion that option 2 is more favourable.

N/A Noted None Belgium The European Cockpit Association

6. 2.3 final paragraph At present, the final statement in section 2.3 is without justification and should be edited.

Whilst we understand the need for fixed routes, we don't see the need for European wide closely spaced turning routes. It is likely to bring benefits to high density and very high density TMAs, but it is difficult to see the cost-benefit for medium or low density. This point is actually made elsewhere in the document, in section 3.1.1.4.

Re-work this paragraph to indicate that closely spaced routes with predictable turns are needed for high and very high density airspace.

2.3.2.2 Accepted The paragraph will be modified as proposed.

Germany IAOPA Europe

7. 2.2 Institutional environment

The document does not address the very issue of the applicability of SES regulations provisions to the GPSSPS. The issue is of most importance for NSA as, according to the ICAO GNSS Manual, states shall approve GNSS. Clarification is needed with regard to the extent the SES regulations apply to GPS and the required steps a State shall follow in order to approve GNSS.

Clarification needed. 2.3.2.10

Accepted The non-applicability of SES regulations to GPS has been already discussed by SSC in 2010. The MoM of that SSC meeting are not legally binding. Following recent ICAO ANC 12 conclusions, we EUROCONTROL is discussing with the EC how to introduce a waiver in the applicability of the SES to GNSS core-constellations (e.g. GPS, Galileo, GLONASS and

Romania Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority


- 38 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


Beidou). A paper addressing this subject could be presented to SSC in 2013. This action could help in having a common European approach regarding the States acceptance of GPS/GNSS as primary means.

8. 2.3 - Sub paragraph 6

"Increasingly, traffic into Terminal airspace will be managed along ATS routes and metered in time. It is expected that outer and inner terminal holding facilities will continue to be used and that these may be redefined in both size and location, based on aircraft navigation performance." To redefine the size of a holding pattern based on aircraft navigation performance, there is a need to define a "RNAV Holding" navigation specification, mainly for the case when the pilot is flying manually the holding pattern with an aircraft not equipped with this automatic function.

Many aircraft do not have RNAV or RNP holding function and the ATC is not aware whether the aircraft is capable to fly automatically or is handled by the pilot.

2.3.2.2 Noted Every FMS used in commercial air transport today has an automatic RNAV holding function. Only the panel mounted devices found in many General Aviation aircraft, usually lack this function. But they also lack most other functions like RF, RTA etc.

France DGAC

9. 2.3 Operational Environment

The latest EUROCONTROL 7-year Forecast: IFR Flight Movements suggest that in the Medium term Outlook to 2018, the traffic numbers are not estimated to get back above the 2008 level until 2017 (low estimate). Note that forecasts have been lowered every year since January 2006 (NATS En-route plc (NERL) Service & Investment Plan (SIP)), data). The introduction of Option 2 i.e., Advanced RNP with FRT in the en-route flight phase in 2020 may not be justified on the grounds of traffic demand.

Despite capturing the operational environment in the Regulatory Approach, we suggest that the latest forecast traffic data does not support the introduction of Option 2 as proposed.

See Alternative Proposal.

2.3.2.5 Partially Accepted

The analysis has been conducted using the most recent STATFOR traffic forecasts. It is true that STATFOR forecasts have been revised downwards in recent years, but STATFOR forecasts are monitored by the STATFOR User Group, which

United Kingdom CAA


- 39 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


includes experts from ANSPs, NSAs and airlines across Europe, and are considered to be the best forecasts available for our purpose. The analysis indicates that PBN implementation will deliver a good rate of return even with the current STATFOR low traffic forecast. However the need for FRT is under review.

10. 2.3 Operational Environment

Free routes do not support requirements for PBN and therefore any benefits from their introduction cannot be credited to the PBN IR.

False assumption. Revise text to clarify the benefits from Free Routes and take account in the Economic Impact Assessment.

2.3.2.5 Noted The analysis does not claim any Free Route benefits for PBN. The text will be modified to clearly state this. Section 2.3 does, however, note that PBN capabilities may have a role to play in connecting free route airspace with terminal procedures.

United Kingdom CAA

11. 3.1.1.4 - Sub paragraph 3

"As a first step, the application of available Required Time of Arrival (RTA) capability is expected to provide some early benefits" Is there a document for standardisation of the desired RTA level to avoid the leeway during implementation, if all users must be equipped for 2020 except exemptions (scenario 2)?

Two phases are defined through this RAD, phase 1 from 2014 to 2020, and phase 2 from 2020 to 2025. No scalability for the on board equipage has been defined within these two phases in the RAD.

2.3.2.2 Noted The specification for RTA is being developed in RTCA SC-227 / WG-85. This committee will issue a new MASPS DO-236C / ED-75C in mid 2013.

France DGAC


- 40 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


12. 3.1.1.5 - Annex C - Section 3.3.2.3 - 2nd paragraph

3.1.1.5 states that ....Vertical guidance is required to reduce CFIT … Annex C section 3.3.2.3: states that The deployment of APVs will ensure that all approaches will be performed with vertical guidance. Stakeholder action ANSPs will be required to deploy APV-BARO and or APV SBAS by the end of 2020 to either to replace existing conventional procedures or to provide new instrument procedures at new instrument runways. It is suggested that it is a missed opportunity that there is nothing in the IR however that explicitly requires the removal of NPA, and specifically NDB NPA procedures.

1) The motive for APV and A37-11 is strongly supported, however, there is nothing in the RAD that would lead to a regulated removal of Non-Precision operations. The use of the word 'replace' implies removal of the NPA. If the intent of the IR is to improve safety through use of APV, then the requirement for removal of NPA should be explicit. It is noted there are transition issues and that some airfields may wish to retain NPA as a contingency procedure, in which case the NPA should be relegated to a secondary or tertiary approach for commercial operations. The text and / or in the RAD perpetuates that Baro and SBAS APV procedures are competitors. For the foreseeable future the APV procedures are complimentary as they target different types of aircraft.

1) Add a requirement within the RAD for the NDB NPA to be withdrawn or phased out for commercial operations. 2) Amend text such that the requirement is for APV procedures to be available for all types of aircraft that operate into a specific airfield. Noting this however could be accommodated through a procedure designed as an APV Baro being coded to allow an SBAS aircraft to fly to LNAV/VNAV Minima, albeit with a minima penalty.

2.3.2.2 Accepted The text will be modified as proposed.

United Kingdom CAA

13. 3.1.1.5 Need for a Harmonised PBN Solution, Using RNP/GNSS Across Europe

Further to Comment Form No. 2 (281), whilst the CAA fully endorses supports the “Need for a harmonised PBN solution, using RNP/GNSS across Europe”, the timing has to be tailored to the demand and also be aligned with the Performance Plan. The proposal also has to be proportionate and recognise that “one size doesn’t fit all”. So accepting the need for a cost/benefit analysis to justify airspace change in en-route, terminal airspace and in approach, the case for improvements has to be made on a case-by-case basis.

Experience from drafting the UK Future Airspace Strategy (FAS), the short term FAS Industry Implementation Plan and from promoting PBN implementation around the UK.

Alternative Proposal • Given the current estimates for IFR movements in Europe, we feel that a 2020 date for Advanced RNP is not justifiable. One could consider reducing the capability required for this time period e.g., to RNAV 1 and thereby reduce the aircraft retrofit costs. However, the airspace change costs incurred by the ANSP would still be the same and a further change required when the traffic demands a move to the full Advanced RNP capability. In this


The rational behind the en-route proposal is understood. Regarding the approach part, although the need for proportionality is understood, APVs are expected at smaller airports to remove the need for conventional NPA - for safety improvement. The applicability dates will be further assessed; criteria for proportionality will be analysed during the drafting

United Kingdom CAA


- 41 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


situation we suggest that consideration be given to delaying the implementation of Option 2 en-route until the start of 2025 i.e., the beginning of Reference Period 4. In this time period the RTA function may also be more mature and the operational concept for applying time constraints in complex, systemised airspace structures, better defined. • Despite en-route demand only slowly recovering until post 2020, we do envisage the need for re-structuring and modernisation of key terminal airspace blocks in this timeframe. Rather than applying Option 2 across all European terminal airspace we suggest consideration be given in 2020 to applying the provision of RNP 1, RF and RNAV Holding and use of Altitude Constraints on vertical profiles to all terminal airspace procedures linked to airports identified in Reference Period 3 i.e., those airports with greater than 70,000 IFR air transport

of the rule.


- 42 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


movements per year. This would be more proportionate and target improvements at the airports with larger traffic movements. Advanced RNP in terminal airspace could be applied consistent with its introduction in the en-route in 2025. • In approach we feel that the implementation of APV procedures (SBAS and Baro VNAV) and LNAV procedures has to be proportionate. We could support the requirement being applied again to those airports identified under Reference Period 3 as having greater than 70,000 IFR air transport movements per year.

14. 3.1.1.5 - second bullet - sub paragraph 4

The reference to RNP 0.3 here may not be appropriate

According to a study carried out at Roissy Charles de Gaulle, supported by a triple simultaneous parallel approach system, RNP 0.3 required accuracy was not sufficient to meet the existing safety case. SBAS LPV or RNP 0.1 would be required.

2.3.2.2 Noted It is agreed that for certain (rare) cases RNP 0.1 might be required. However, this text is referring to a general need. In exceptional cases more stringent requirements can be introduced depending on the specific implementation.

France DGAC


- 43 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


15. 3.2.1 A justification to harmonise navigation accuracy is given here. This does not give the justification to set the additional PBN functionality as a baseline case (i.e. Option 1).

There is no indication that controllers in a particular airspace could not deal with e.g. a mixture of RNAV 1 and RNP 1 routes - the difference would probably be in the route spacing by design, rather than in how traffic is handled day-to-day. In fact, there may not even be a difference in spacing, since if RNAV1 is used as a reversion mode for RNP1 routes, the spacing may be consistent with RNAV1 anyway. Furthermore, there is little indication that a route with vertical constraints and another route without cannot be handled. Thus mandating VNAV for all routes based on this argument is without justification. We note that SESAR step 1 will also include advanced AMAN/DMAN for high and very high density TMAs. This change in environment should also be taken into account (e.g. the AMAN can help assign routes according to broad equipage level). Finally, to argue the point that a new database might be needed is rather strange, given the number of other new functions that appear to be required under the "minimum" scenario. This argument is spurious and should be deleted.

We would recommend a solution where two types of routes are developed - one being RNP1 with RF legs, VNAV etc; the other being RNAV 1. Under the US and European principle of "Best Efficiency/Equipped, Best Served", the RNP1 routes would be more direct and give greater benefits to those equipped, but not at the cost of blocking access for those aircraft unable to equip with some of that functionality.


This issue will be analysed during the drafting of the rule and the extended impact assessments. The way in which the BEBS concept would be implemented is not yet agreed at European level, therefore cannot be a basis for implementing rule. If two types of routes need to be made available this is essential to be understood by all aeronautical data supply chain actors notably the originator onwards and this will very likely have a bearing on ICAO SARPs and the rule (MoC) itself.


16. 3.2.1 'lowest level of performance. ...'

Not entirely correct as means that there is an RNAV 5 protection area next to an RNAV 1 protection area. The RNAV 1 still keeps its dimensions but cannot be flown by an RNAV 5 aircraft. Whereas the RNAV 5 is far too big keeping in mind how small it could be if there were only RNAV 1 aircraft.

This statement is confusing. 2.3.2.2 Accepted The text will be amended.

Austria AUSTRO CONTROL


- 44 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


17. 3.2.1 - Sub paragraph 5

"Finally, it is expected that a SES PBN IR through the civil/military coordination Essential Requirement would help maximise the number of State aircraft capable of demonstrating compliance with the PBN requirements. This will minimise the need for exemptions and consequently reduce the risk of creating another level of mixed navigation mode operation." Should State aircraft be mandated to comply with PBN requirement, while the ICAO Chicago Convention, Article 3, exempts them from the ICAO regulation?

According to Chicago Convention Article 3, "This Convention shall be applicable only to civil aircraft, and shall not be applicable to state aircraft" and "The contracting States undertake, when issuing regulations for their state aircraft, that they will have due regard for the safety of navigation of civil aircraft." This means that the State aircraft are not obliged to follow the standards and recommended practices of ICAO Annexes. This non-requirement includes PBN Manual (Doc 9613).

2.3.2.7 Noted Because civil-military coordination is an essential requirement of SES recognised in the Interoperability Regulation and in line with the declaration of member States on military matters included in the framework regulation. Civil-military aspects have been covered in many other IRs (DLS, AGVCS, SPI, etc.)

France DGAC

18. 3.2.1 Mixed Navigation Performance Constraints

Reference: Page 15, last sentence and page 16, first sentence. It is not clear to the UK MOD just what these sentences are trying to say. An Implementing Rule will only reduce need for exemptions and maximise opportunities for equivalence if it is written with the military in mind i.e., towards the lower end of PBN capability. We know this will not be the case as pressure from civil/business end will want the exact opposite! If these sentences are trying to highlight the need for civil military coordination in the production of this Implementing Rule so as to accommodate as much as possible military platforms then naturally we would agree with that but the exact message needs to be much clearer.

Lack of clarity from text. Clarification requested. 2.3.2.7 Accepted What was meant there was that the IR must offer opportunities for performance based equivalence for compliance hence reducing the need for mixed mode accommodation. More details can be found in annex F and clearer statements will be included in the IR.

United Kingdom CAA/MOD


- 45 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


19. 3.2.1 and E.3.2.5 Whilst recognising the constraints from Mixed Navigation Performance operations, the Regulatory Approach seems at odds with the idea of a 20 year age exemption. An 80% projected level of equipage in 2020 i.e., 20% non-equipage (see Figure 4 – projected levels of equipage in E.3.2.5) would cause the service provider big problems for airspace design and mixed operations e.g., loss of efficiency and is seen as a barrier for change. Note: the existing capability of exempt aircraft would be a factor – if they were already RNAV 1 compliant the issue would not be as pronounced. The degree of non-compliance therefore dictates what service can be offered.

Having identified mixed navigation performance constraints, accommodation of the projected level of non-compliance is not considered feasible in the 2020 timeframe. Even accommodating the 10% projected level of non-equipage in 2025 will be challenging, if mixed operations are to be avoided.

There needs to be greater consistency between the principles of paragraph 3.2.1 and the Preliminary Economic Impact Assessment in Annex E.

2.3.2.5 Accepted There is a balance to be obtained between the requirements of the ANSPs and the justifiable concerns of the aircraft operators. ANSPs would understandably prefer the highest level of equipage. However, to obtain higher levels of equipage in the near term would require older aircraft to be retrofitted and, as the analysis shows, this causes aircraft operators' costs to rise very steeply. It is anticipated that, as a consequence of the formal consultation process, more specific information will be made available from ANSPs on the consequences and costs of handling aircraft with mixed navigation capabilities to allow an acceptable trade-off to be made between these and the costs of the

United Kingdom CAA


- 46 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


aircraft operators.

20. 3.2.2 Implementation Constraints

Suggest change 'there may' to 'there will be' a need for transition arrangements to take account of the procurement and technical constraints that military organisations face when confronted with new ATM requirements.

UK MOD view is that a transition period will be required.

As suggested. 2.3.2.7 Accepted The text will be changed as proposed.


21. 3.2.2 Add appreciation of transition arrangements for GA/AW, some regional aircraft etc, particularly in terms of lack of suitable equipment to meet RNP1 with all functionality, huge and unfeasible cost barriers, and large number of IFR aircraft (between 5000 and 8000, dependent on the scope of the mandate) with many different avionics fitments.

An appreciation of the impact on the military is given. This ignores the large number of aircraft that currently cannot meet the Option 1 minimum without expenditure equalling or superseding the cost of the aircraft itself. This appreciation should be developed when talking about implementation timescales.

Add paragraph (and supporting material in appropriate Annex) on likely transition arrangements for GA/AW and some regional aircraft.

2.3.2.8 Accepted A paragraph will be added as proposed.


22. 3.2.2 last para Carriage of new avionics must only become mandatory after EASA has implemented a streamlined process for a) Approval /documentation / certification of all new onboard navigation equipment required for PBN. For instance, any approvals issued by the FAA must be valid automatically for flights / aircraft in the EASA member states. b) Training requirements for pilots. c) Administrative / Organisational / maintenance cost burden for the aircraft operator. If that is not in place, the business case will be

Experience from previous IRs (e.g. Mode S, 833VEX) is that large investments on the AU side still have not resulted in any measurable operational benefit, partially due to delays in streamlined approvals/certification.

2.3.2.4

Noted It is acknowledged that for various reasons the supporting airworthiness certification standards and appropriate operational approval criteria have not been available when the



- 47 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


negative, even for large a/c operators while it may be negative for smaller ones, e.g. regional airlines, MIL and GA anyway, not to mention 3rd country operators. An assumption that it will happen is not enough; it has not in the past.

IR has been published. It is also recognised that this has had a negative impact on the aircraft equipage rates. It is EASA intent in accordance with the Rulemaking Programme to ensure that the certification and approval material will be available within a timely manner before the effective date of the Implementing rule.

23. 4.2 Structure of the draft IR: The detailed technical requirements should be expressed as acceptable means of compliance (Certification Specification or Community specification). The compliance and traceability to the Essential Requirements in EC 216/2008 Annex Vb should be outside the scope of the draft IR "PBN Interoperability" (refer to §4.2, 5th bullet). The Safety requirements resulting from the end-to-end safety assessment should have to be covered by the EASA rules at CS level. Only high level security requirements should be put at the level of the draft IR. More detailed requirements should be identified at the level of the CS (Certification Specification or Community specification). Possible security requirements may be one of the drivers to define the date of applicability of the mandate (Section 4.2). The Continuity Requirements related to the airborne PBN capability, derived from the end-to-end safety assessment, should be covered by the EASA rules at CS/AMC level and contain

Need for clarification. 2.3.2.6

Noted Safety requirements will be properly allocated within the available applicable regulatory frameworks. Full consistency and harmonisation will be ensured.

France AIRBUS


- 48 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


quantitative performance objectives.

24. 4.2 GAMA welcomes Eurocontrol moving forward with the referenced "two levels of operational continuity"; that is, Level 1: single area navigation system / GNSS single frequency only; and Level 2 Dual area navigation system / dual frequency / Multi constellation GNSS and / or RNP based on conventional NAVAIDs.

This approach appropriately considers capabilities more common on the range of aircraft including general aviation.

N/A Noted None. United States GAMA

25. 4.2 - 5.2.2 - Annex A - Table 1

GAMA is concerned with Eurocontrol's proposal of select equipment requirements (such as, fixed radius turn, required time of arrival, "Advanced RNP (1 NM TSE)", and baro VNAV vertical constraint) are not commonly available on small (Part / CS 23) airplanes and some small- / mid-size transport category (Part / CS) 25 airplanes. Additionally, several of these capabilities when they exist in standards are an "option" in the standard or are still under development by a standard body.

The term "Advanced RNP (1 NM TSE)" is not a clearly defined or mature set of requirements based on which equipment can be developed and installed on a new or existing aircraft. Additionally, general aviation and many business aviation airplanes primarily rely on navigation equipment that is based on E/TSO-C146(). However, there are several requirements identified in the ENPRM including Fixed-Radius Transition (FRT) that are optional or, in the case of supporting baro VNAV vertical constraint, the requirements do not exist. Additionally, several of these capabilities, and others such as Tactical Parallel Offset (TPO) were not required for previous sensors.

GAMA recommends that Eurocontrol ensure that the draft IR only references mature standards that available for review by the community. Additionally, GAMA recommends that the draft Implementing Regulation, when proposed by Eurocontrol, identify equipment standards for which clear guidance, specific required functionality, and approval processes are available. Finally, Eurocontrol should consider the impact on the existing fleet from requiring capabilities, such as FRT, that may be optional in common equipment such as E/TSO-C146.

2.3.2.2 Accepted Option 1 contains just the core Advanced RNP functions such as RF, performance monitoring and alerting and the use of GNSS. Agreed that FRT and RTA for the moment are options, although the technical requirements are being defined in RTCA SC-227 / EUROCAE WG-85 which will issue a new MASPS DO-236C / ED-75C in mid 2013. The impact on existing fleet will be assessed in detail.

United States GAMA


- 49 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


26. 4.2 - Enclosure 1 IR draft covers airspace ICAO-AFI. AFI airspace is not covered from EU legislation.

The covered airspace should be adjusted.

2.3.2.3 Rejected With regard to the airspace to which SES Regulations apply, Article 1.3 of the EP and Council Airspace Regulation No 551/2004 (as amended by Regulation No 1070/2009) states that "Without prejudice to Article 10, this Regulation shall apply to the airspace within the ICAO EUR and AFI regions where Member States are responsible for the provision of air traffic services in accordance with the service provision Regulation. Member States may also apply this Regulation to airspace under their responsibility within other ICAO regions, on condition that they inform the Commission and the other Member States thereof". As a consequence and as far as the ICAO AFI Region is concerned, SES Regulations apply to the airspace

Germany German NSA


- 50 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


within the ICAO AFI region where Member States are responsible for the provision of ATS.

27. 4.2 - Page 20 The requirement of installing airborne equipment with GNSS single frequency vs. GNSS Multiconstellation dual frequency is not discussed in the RAD. This is a major issue for an ANSP like DSNA because the RAD is at the same time asking ANSPs to design backup networks and procedures in case of failure of a single GNSS, or unintentional interference of a single frequency (this is DSNA understanding of the worst case scenarios that have to be worked out.) But designing backup navigation networks and procedures is very different depending on whether multiconstellation is required or not at a given point in time in the European airspace (assumption is that if required, this would not be before 2025). This is particularly true now that it has been recognised by the PBN SG that RNP, which is expected to become the dominant navigation function for all phases of flight cannot be supported by existing DME/DME systems (please refer to Airbus paper presented at PBN SG to better understand what would be the conditions to reach a RNP capability with DME/DME - while none of these conditions are planned to be met within this RAD). Therefore, if multiconstellation/multifrequency GNSS, mitigating the failure modes defined above (failure of a single GNSS and or a single frequency) was required, RNP 1 could be supported by a very robust positioning allowing to considerably reduce the conventional navigation infrastructure (in particular eliminate all VOR/NDBs). Moreover, the reversion mode when losing a single constellation/frequency, would still be

There are very important impacts, both on ANSPs and avionic manufacturers/airlines, depending on whether multiconstellation is required at a given step (e.g. 2025) or not, within the regulation.

The PBN IR must clarify what will be the requirements over multiconstellation carriage.

2.3.2.2 Accepted Multiconstellation will probably not be required before 2025. An assessment is necessary if there is a need for a complete RNP backup or whether an RNAV reversion would be sufficient. This will be investigated during the drafting of the rule.

France DGAC


- 51 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


RNP, avoiding the burden to design less efficient backup modes, and train crews and controllers to handle these penalizing situations. Alternatively, if multiconstellation was not required, then a large proportion of a whole combination of conventional navigation systems would still be required (including NDB, VOR). In addition to the burden put on ANSPs in designing the backup modes, since the reversion of RNP would now be at best RNAV, this would probably stop aircraft manufacturers to decommission conventional navaids boxes (typically VOR, NDB) from their avionic suites.

28. 4.2 Subjects covered by regulatory provisions - Bullet "The conformity assessment requirements..."

Having regard to the issue highlighted in Comment 1 above (7), the obligation of ANSP to issue declaration of verification for GPS SPS shall be clearly defined.


Accepted The point of the applicability of SES to GPS/GNSS is under consideration at present. The matter was discussed with the SSC in 2010 and is likely to be discussed further in early 2013. The matter should be clarified before PBN enters into force, i.e. before 2015.


29. 4.3 1st bullet The mentioned rules have to be in scope. They do not need to be described in detail, but these rules must be in place before this IR comes into force.

See comment on 3.2.2 above (22). It is our experience that this has been a major problem with past implementing rules (or mandates).

2.3.2.1 Noted None. Germany IAOPA Europe

30. 5.2 Interoperability requirements: Whatever the option, interoperability requirements should be developed in a global perspective, in the same way as done in international standardisation framework. Global

Need for clarification. 2.3.2.1 2.3.2.2 2.3.2.9

Accepted Global standards are being defined in RTCA SC-227 / EUROCAE WG-85, which will

France AIRBUS


- 52 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


interoperability of each option is not sufficiently addressed. Traceability (compliance) with global standards (ICAO & EUROCAE/RTCA) for each option shall be established. ICAO standards terminology shall be kept, e.g. RNP 1 (1 NMTSE) with additional functionalities (RF, FRT, ...). Continuity requirements for ANSP (§5.2.4): It is in the scope of this draft IR to regulate the reversionary navigation means in case of GNSS outages (both scheduled and unscheduled). Section 5.2.4, which is addressing the case of loss of the GNSS Signal in Space, should specify that the ATC back-up procedures shall be established in a harmonised manner within the ANSPs. It is of utmost importance that same procedures are implemented across EATMN. Airbus would recommend considering the use of RNAV 1 as reversionary mode to RNP 1.

issue a new MASPS DO-236C / ED-75C in mid 2013. Consideration of the use of RNAV 1 as reversionary mode to RNP 1 will be given during the development of the draft rule.

31. 5.2 Regulatory Options

The Advanced RNP shall only apply in certain demanding airspaces, where operational needs require such navigation application. A navigation application should be established having regard to airspace constraints and operational requirements. In airspaces where there are no strong operational requirements that render necessary the navigation specifications of Advanced RNP, RNAV 5 shall be used. In order to avoid unnecessary (implementation) costs with no operational benefits, the adopted solution shall be established so as to accomodate to the operational context. According to ICAO Assembly Resolution 37/11, the target date set for LNAV/APV implementation in 2016. The RAD proposed a different date, namely 2020. PBN IR shall be either aligned with ICAO Resolution or agreement from ICAO shall be sought for a change of target date from 2016, as established by ICAO, to 2020, the PBN IR proposed date.

Clarification needed. Implement Advanced RNP above FL285, while below FL285 another navigation applications should be proposed (at least in less demanding airspaces), or left at the state discretion.

2.3.2.2 Noted It is agreed that proportionality and targeting should be achieved. The applicability criteria with respect to airspace coverage will be further analysed during the drafting of the rule and the extended impact assessment.



- 53 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


32. 5.2.1 At present, Option 1 and Option 2 are analogous for our GA/AW members. Several areas of clarity are required.

a) It is unclear whether RNP1 is necessary for all TMAs in Europe. Could RNAV 1 not be used in low-medium density TMAs? This is surely the intention of performance based navigation. b) Designing SIDS and STARS with reduced spacing does not mean the entire airspace must be mandated to the same level. c) It is unclear whether VNAV capability means Baro-VNAV, or if geometric VNAV could be used. Note: we agree with the use of APV-SBAS in the approach, and do not have any issues with the en-route environment requirements. We would ask that a clarification is added that all APV approaches are designed to be Baro and SBAS applicable.

Ensure these points are clarified in the options description.

2.3.2.2 Accepted Clarification will be provided.


33. 5.2.1 - Sub-paragraph 1 & 3

The wording brings confusion between RNP1 capability and Advanced RNP specification.

Advanced RNP is composed of 7 navigation functions, some of which are not proposed in option1. The use of the term "Advanced RNP (1 NM TSE)" brings confusion because it is not clear whether it refers to RNP1 capability or to the full set of the 7 advanced-RNP functions.

"ensuring a uniform PBN solution with Advanced RNP1 (1 NM TSE) capability ...". "an area navigation system with Advanced RNP1 capability (1NM TSE) predicated on GNSS would be required onboard aircraft ..."

2.3.2.2 Accepted Advanced RNP is proposed as the basic requirement for the three options. Note that RTA and FRT are not part of the core Advance RNP specification.

France DGAC

34. 5.2.1 - Sub-paragraph 6

The context of use of VNAV function in TMA is unclear, this brings doubts on whether this is a required function or a recommended function in the context of the IR PBN. Please clarify what is expected to be done with VNAV in terminal areas, and possibly reconsider the requirement for VNAV in terminal area.

The use of VNAV in the future in TMA doesn't seem to have been fully explored, while this may have important consequences on the type of avionics required. Is VNAV expected to fly geometrically constrained paths coded with 3D WGS 84 waypoints, so that e.g. segregate landing and departing flows? Is VNAV expected to support CDO/CCO by also coding 3D paths? Or is VNAV expected to be only an advisory vertical guidance function as used today on certain aircraft? When

2.3.2.2 Accepted For the TMA only advisory VNAV is being considered, the minimum being the ability to program a vertical constraint in a flight plan.

France DGAC


- 54 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


flying VNAV above the transition altitude, this may not be consistent with the BaroVNAV systems deployed today, since the QNH setting is 1013 and not consistent with 3D WGS 84 waypoints. Alternatively SBAS systems may fly 3D WGS 84 waypoints, but may not implemented on the largest aircraft within this RAD.

35. 5.2.1 - Sub-paragraph 9

The redaction brings confusion between LNAV and APV procedures.

In ICAO resolution A37-11, the assembly resolves that: "… 2) implementation of approach procedures with vertical guidance (APV) (Baro-VNAV and/or augmented GNSS), including LNAV only minima, for all instrument runway ends … 3) implementation of straight-in LNAV only procedures, as an exception to 2) above, for instrument runways at aerodromes where there is no local altimeter setting available and where there are no aircraft suitably equipped for APV operations with a maximum certificated take-off mass of 5 700 kg or more;'' It means that aircraft won't necessarily always benefit of vertical guidance on each runway. Where necessary, they will also have the choice between the APV procedure and a procedure with LNAV minima.

This would ensure that all approaches to instrument runways would be performed with vertical guidance, to the exception of LNAV-only runways (due to technical reasons).

2.3.2.2 Accepted The text will be changed as proposed.

France DGAC

36. 5.2.1 Option 1 5.2.2 Option 2 Table 1

Assuming a uniform PBN solution, as a minimum requirement Advanced RNP is too advanced for terminal airspace applications in the 2020 timeframe and consideration should be given to requiring, RNP 1 with RF.

Comment as stated above, although if there is sufficient desire and benefits can be achieved, trajectory based operations may be available in some terminal airspace but not all.

See Alternative Proposal. Advanced RNP in terminal airspace could be applied consistent with the Alternative Proposal and its introduction in the en-route in 2025.

2.3.2.2 Noted The PBN manual reads: "The RNP 1 specification provides a means to develop routes for connectivity between the en-route structure and terminal airspace (TMA) with no or limited ATS

United Kingdom CAA


- 55 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


surveillance, with low to medium density traffic." Also RNP 1 allows DME sensors as primary navigation means while Advanced RNP does not. Therefore it is considered that Advanced RNP should be the target specification for implementation as from 2020.

37. 5.2.1 Option 1 5.2.2 Option 2 5.2.3 Option 3 Table 1

It has been noted by the UK CAA that subject to the airport supporting Baro VNAV procedures, the airlines would like to see such procedures implemented wherever an SBAS approach is published.

Observation. None. N/A Noted None. United Kingdom CAA


The UK CAA view is that, if a 3D approach is in place there should also be an LNAV procedure as a contingency in the event of loss of vertical guidance. This is not necessarily a global view, but is offered to EUROCONTROL as a possible policy item for inclusion in the Implementing Rule.

UK PBN Policy. None. 2.3.2.2 Accepted Agree with the proposal. A statement that ''Wherever APV is implemented an LNAV minima line should also be included wherever possible.'' will be added in the RAD.

United Kingdom CAA


Whilst the UK CAA is supportive of the ICAO Assembly Resolution A37-11, we feel that introduction of APV procedures should be business driven and that a blanket mandate for all IFR runways is disproportionate.

Cost / Benefit case needs to be shown for all airspace changes and despite the ICAO Assembly Resolution, we feel that the final decision to introduce such procedures should be left to the ANSP in conjunction with their customers.

See Alternative Proposal.

2.3.2.2 2.3.2.3

Noted The point is recognised, however, it represents a very specific perspective. Consideration will be given to the need to apply proportionality and targeting when determining the

United Kingdom CAA


- 56 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


scope of applicability during the drafting of the rule.

40. 5.2.2 We would like to use this opportunity to point out one inconsistency in the existing rules applicable in the field of PBN.EASAAMC 20-27 published the criteria for RNP/RNAV approaches. Yes, AMC 20-5 still presents criteria for GPS approaches. This leads to confusion in the applicable operational criteria for GPS approaches (especially considering different aircraft from single engine pistons to transport category aircraft). We recognise this is an issue that needs to be taken up also with EASA, but would like to take it up here as well.

2.3.2.1 Noted The confusion in the applicable of AMC 20-5 and AMC 20-27 is recognised by EASA. Though RMT 0519/0520 the AMC 20 material that is applicable to PBN operations will be transposed to the new CS-ACNS structure and AMC material to Part-SPA. This transposition should eliminate any further confusion with respect to the current AMC 20 material.

Finland Finnish Transport Safety Agency


Please explain why the RF functionality is never considered as an option for turning segments in the "En-Route" phase of flight.

The following sentence suggests that minimum spacing on turning legs during the "En-Route" phase of flight can only be applied with an FRT function: "...FRT aircraft functionality for aircraft flying ATS fixed routes above FL195 by 2020 and, therefore, minimum route spacing could be applied on all ATS fixed routes including turning segments. "Is the

2.3.2.2 Accepted RF can only be coded in an ARINC 424 arrival or approach procedure. It cannot be coded in an Airway Record. There are more disadvantages related to the

France DGAC


- 57 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


only reason a gain of capacity (2 WPT for one turning leg with RF, 1 WPT for one turning leg with FRT) for FMS databases? Moreover, the ECAC En-Route airspace can't be limited to the ATS fixed routes network because of Free-route development, whose importance and form in the future is difficult to estimate. FRT function is useless in a Free-route context, since no Airways are registered in the FMS.

hypothetical use of RF in enroute phase of flight because of the fact that there need to be two waypoint per turn (start of turn waypoint and end of turn waypoint). This would cause clutter on navigation displays (as the scale is usually increased in enroute phase of flight) and would also be less efficient for controllers.


Option 2 promotes the TPO airborne capability. The benefits of the TPO capability have not yet been assessed by DSNA. Please provide more material about the benefits of requiring TPO by 2020.

2.3.2.2 Accepted Details will be provided.

France DGAC


Please provide more details about the ground meteorological facilities and associated on-board capabilities that "Capability to meet a single time constraint" would require. How is the RAD PBN-IR process coordinated with SESAR i4D project?

Capability to meet a single ATC time constraint strongly depends on meteorological parameters, and so can't be considered as completely repeatable in an operational context. The smaller the accuracy of Time of Arrival Control (TOAC) is, the more dependent on meteorological parameters aircraft are, which brings uncertainty and complexity for ATC. Moreover, to achieve high accuracy, it will require more precise weather data and new exchange of these data between board and ground, which isn't evaluated in this paper.

2.3.2.2 Accepted Assumptions on weather data needed to support time of arrival control are drafted in the new MASPS Do-236C / ED-75C in RTCA SC-227 / EUROCAE WG-85. The PBN IR development process monitors and takes appropriately into account the developments within the SESAER i4D project.

France DGAC


- 58 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



DSNA agrees on using "Capability to meet a single time constraint" for "En-Route" operations with a 30 seconds accuracy TOAC (already available in the recent equipment). The benefits need however to be more precisely assessed. Please, provide material about it.

The future PBN-IR should clearly specify the accuracy of Time of Arrival Control precision attached to the "Capability to meet a single time constraint" function. A scenario with mixed equipment avionics of different time-constraint (typically 10s and 30s) would bring complexity for ATC and only the larger one will be used. Due to the already existing avionics providing a 30 seconds precision, and the on-going activities to reach 10 seconds precision, for which suitable avionics maturity for 2020 can't be sure today, a 30 seconds precision should be the PBN-IR preferred option. Table 3 page 36 raises significant issues on the impact of this function.

2.3.2.2 Accepted Concept is clearly defined for the use of a target time of arrival in addition to a CTOT, which is intended to provide more clarity to operators about the restriction in the network and to provide more means to the operator to arrive more accurately at the ATFCM restriction. Having aircraft to comply more accurately with flow management restrictions will lead to higher declared capacity which might reduce restrictions overall. Concerning table 3 page 36, the significance of the issues will be subject to further assessment. The speed range that can be used for RTA speed control is quite limited in the cruise phase of flight. Studies have been performed in EUROCAE WG-85 and the conclusion was that the spacing between

France DGAC


- 59 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


aircraft is much more affected by the incompatibility of the normal cruise speeds of different aircraft, rather than the fact that the aircraft can make slight adjustments to the speed to correct wind errors during RTA operation. EUROCAE WG-85 / RTCA SC-227 has defined two accuracies for RTA: 30s in cruise and 10s in descent phase of flight, as it was anticipated that 10s will not be enough for operations at lower altitudes.

45. 5.2.2 Option 2 The option 2 would be acceptable with a delay on implementation date.

The required aircraft functionalities to be implemented by 2020, taking into consideration the 7-year notice convention of regulators to aviation industry, will have a short time for the execution of tasks needed for this process, namely safety assessments, cost analysis and aircraft equipage. Also because of economic situation companies are facing this could be an extra burden to them. Therefore, a delay on this date would be preferable.

Option 2, required aircraft functionalities: 2020 changed to a later date.

2.3.2.3 Noted Applicability dates will be subject to further consideration during the drafting of the rule and the extended regulatory impact assessment.

Portugal INAC


- 60 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


46. 5.2.2 Option 2 - 5.2.3 Option 3

The implementation dates should be amended as follows: Option 2 -> 2025 Option 3 -> 2030

The reasons for the comment have been extracted from some parts of RAD, as it seems to be inconsistent with the goals to achieve: It is recognised that part of the underlying technology required for Option 3 is still under development, as is the operational concept, including TBO, under which it would be introduced in the EATMN. The reliability of the cost and efficiency analyses for these elements is therefore limited and any future developments would have to rely upon the availability of relevant data and concepts. It is stated that the rule shall specifically address the implementation of International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Assembly Resolution A37-11. However, the only dates mentioned to accomplish are those related to approach procedures. It does not refer any milestones for en route and terminal areas. Taking into consideration that some national Military Authorities have already expressed their preference for a minimum regulatory coverage due to budgetary constraints, it seems that we can assume that State aircraft will "oblige" ANSPs to manage their airspace accordingly accommodating mixed navigation performance capability leading to a reduction in capacity of the network due to increase in ATC workload. It is assumed that the concept of operation for using a capability to meet a time constraint en-route is not fully specified and would require a substantial safety assessment. For a scenario without any


It is agreed that the MASPS DO-236B / ED-75B RTA functionality in Option 2 would be a huge step and very demanding requirement in terms of retrofitting existing aircraft, especially in the business/regional aircraft market. It still needs to be investigated if the MASPS DO-236B / ED-75B RTA is really needed or if a target time of arrival en route can be met with providing an ETA indication to the crew and manual crew action. The applicability dates will be subject to further assessment.

Portugal NAV Portugal


- 61 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


constraints it is a generally accepted convention that regulators should aim at giving the aviation industry a 7-year notice period for new equipage requirements. However we have to prevent other worst scenarios and the 7-year noticed period would prove to be insufficient to accomplish equipage requirements. Finally, increasing the time between the issuing of a mandate and its applicability date will reduce implementation costs as more new production aircraft can be fitted with required equipment.


It is considered that the operational concepts and aircraft capability are not sufficiently mature to justify the requirement for a single ATC time constraint in the en-route airspace through having a Required Time of Arrival (RTA) function in 2020.

An Industry Committee (RTCA SC-227 joint with EUROCAE WG-85) is currently updating the RNP-RNAV Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS) Ref. DO-236B/ED-75B to include revised Time Of Arrival Control (TOAC) criteria. Similar to both SESAR and NextGen the operational concept for both en-route and terminal airspace has yet to be fully defined and therefore even though the standards may exist, they may be incompatible with what is implemented on the ground and through airspace change.

Consistent with the Alternative Proposal, the UK suggests that Required Time of Arrival (RTA) not become a minimum function until 2025 i.e., consistent with the introduction of Advanced RNP. This would still allow the introduction of i4D in the interim, but delays’ putting down the minimum requirement until greater certainty of concept is established. EUROCONTROL should also consider utilisation of the Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) capability found on even an RNAV 5 aircraft which would allow greater flow control in the en-route. Application of Time Of Arrival Control in

2.3.2.2 Accepted The comment makes sense in a way that requiring RTA in all aircraft as per updated MASPS DO-236B / ED-75B before 2025 would be a huge step and very demanding requirement in terms of retrofitting existing aircraft, especially in the business/regional aircraft market. However it needs to be investigated if the ETA is of any use in some RNAV 5 aircraft, as it is often not taking into account climb/descent performance and weather (wind/temperatures). Often it is only based on actual

United Kingdom CAA


- 62 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


terminal airspace should only be introduced when proven in the en-route and when it can be shown that there is a demonstrable benefit.

groundspeed.

48. 5.2.2, Page 22 It should be clarified/defined in the document for all three options, what is understood by "all instrument runway ends" (cf. ICAO EUR PBN Task Force, Seventh Meeting, Summary of Discussions, Para 3.1 & 2.9)

Depending on the definition mentioned above it may not be feasible - and/or cost efficient - to deploy RNP approaches at "all instrument runway ends" due to various restrictions (terrain, obstacles, etc).

2.3.2.2 Accepted It is agreed that it may not be possible, or sensible to implement RNP APCH at every instrument runway end. Exceptions should be allowed.

Switzerland FOCA

49. 5.2.2. & 6.2.2 GAMA comment 1 identifies two concerns with the proposed capabilities: maturity of standards for select capabilities and select required capabilities being identified in equipment standards as optional. With respect to maturity, but to some extent capabilities that are optional in the equipment standard, Eurocontrol should consider appropriate transition timeframes for new and existing (retrofit) aircraft.

GAMA appreciates Eurocontrol identifying the 7-year notice period that operators typically require for a new equipment mandate in order to cost-effectively retrofit existing aircraft. However, manufacturers also typically require a minimum of two years from the availability of a mature standard, accepted by the relevant (that is, FAA and EASA) regulators, to integrate the equipment on in-production aircraft models.

GAMA recommends that Eurocontrol fully consider development timelines from the availability of mature equipment standards for new aircraft, which is typically two years, as part of the development of the draft Implementing Rule.

2.3.2.3 Accepted It is the idea that the PBN IR will contain no optional requirements. It might be that it will contain functionality that is at the moment an optional item relating to a navigation specification. RTCA DO-236C and EUROCAE ED-75C will be available from 2013 onwards. Agreed that given the target dates, a 7 year notice period will be tight.

United States GAMA


Please, provide material on [XMAN combined with PMS]/[Time-constraint] comparison and complementarity.

For TMA phase of flight, the benefits appear marginal facing the regulation offered by the combination of PMS and XMAN. The TOAC will not be used for managing high density runway or merging point, and there is a need for a long time to use relative

2.3.2.2 Noted Concerning table 3 page 36, the significance of the issues will be subject to further assessment. The speed range that

France DGAC


- 63 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


separation in particular in approach - even if CTA/RTA associated to AMAN/XMAN could smoothen the traffic to achieve the best runway throughput and avoid the airborne delays by circling or trajectory extension. Table 3 page 37 raises significant issues on the impact of this function.

can be used for RTA speed control is quite limited in the cruise phase of flight. Studies have been performed in EUROCAE WG-85 and the conclusion was that the spacing between aircraft is much more affected by the incompatibility of the normal cruise speeds of different aircraft, rather than the fact that the aircraft can make slight adjustments to the speed to correct wind errors during RTA operation. EUROCONTROL is currently conducting a study regarding the feasibility of the use of a CTA in combination with AMAN in the arrival phase of flight.


The Options should not use the term VNAV as it implies a Vertical Navigation function which not all aircraft types may have and which could be prohibitively expensive to retrofit.

Comment made on grounds of interoperability.

Need to say that the minimum requirement should be the ability to meet altitude constraints i.e., “AT”, “AT or ABOVE”, “AT or BELOW” and “WINDOWS”.


United Kingdom CAA

52. Table 1 Note The Note beneath Table 1 states that “All airborne performance requirements and functionalities also apply to new production

Note requires clarification. As applicable. 2.3.2.7 Noted That means that only forward fit actions are



- 64 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


military transport type state aircraft”. Does this note mean that the military need only to look at new production transport type aircraft (whatever that means)? Whilst a very attractive option the UK MOD does not believe that this is very realistic. There seems to be a disconnect between this document and what is already happening in airspace today i.e., current implementation of PBN. Therefore if the military are to look only at new production transport platforms what do we do with our current fleets? Some aircraft have considerable time left in service - are the military to expect similar transition periods to accommodate them?

expected to be implemented by the military in consequence of PBN regulatory provisions for transport type aircraft. Forward fit must comprise not only new aircraft but also aircraft suffering major mid life upgrades. Other aircraft can be made compliant on the basis of performance equivalence. The approach is similar as for DLS regulation.

53. 5.2.4 - Table 2 - Final Approach part - recital 2

Establishment of GNSS back-up procedures isn't the sole responsibility of ANSPs.

Some airlines have their own back-up procedures, taking into account the capabilities of the involved aircraft, which is more logical.

2.3.2.9 Rejected Should operators be required to design their own back-up procedures then this will introduce unpredictability to ATC. Currently, operators have their own escape procedure following an engine failure after take off, because especially if obstacle limited, aircraft performance on -1# is critical and very specific to each individual aircraft. But if this is used, it is only

France DGAC


- 65 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


one aircraft that will be affected and not multiple aircraft at once.

54. 5.2.4 Potential Stakeholder Actions

The Implementing Rule is a “heavy” and “blunt” instrument when applied across the whole of Europe to all Terminal Airspace. It is therefore considered that as applied in the draft RAD the Terminal Airspace proposal is disproportionate.

The costs to an ANSP operating a less dense / less complex piece of en-route airspace, terminal airspace or airport are disproportionate from the benefits that will be obtained from the Implementing Rule. There has to be a performance measure introduced in order to drive airspace change.

Notwithstanding the need for a common PBN solution across Europe and interoperability, it is recommended that EUROCONTROL structure the Implementing Rule such that it more fairly reflects the costs to be borne and the benefits to be realised by individual ANSPs and airports. See Alternative Proposal.


The majority of the costs of PBN IR implementation (about 90%) must be borne by the aircraft operators. If the implementing rule is applied in the busy core area of Europe then most aircraft will still need to be equipped since about 80% of all flights in Europe enter this area. Thus, restricting the areas in which the rule is applied will make little impact on the overall cost. However, the alternative proposal will be further examined during the development of the rule and the extended economic impact assessment with a view to achieve appropriately targeted applicability with respect to en route and terminal airspace.

United Kingdom CAA


- 66 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


55. 5.2.4 ANSPs Actions

ANSPs actions reflected in table under Phase 1 2014-2020 should also reflect TMA operations. ANSP action: "Establish ATC back up procedures in case of GNSS outage for all phases of flight" reflected in the same table should be placed under a new header "All phases of flight" (not as proposed, under "En-route").

Para 3.1.1.5, second bullet point highlight consequences related to the lack of harmonised navigation capabilities in TMA and I quote "... accuracy of +/- 1NM and repeatable turn performances would be required to meet closely space routes concept when applied in TMA". Consequently this should be reflected under a new header Terminal Airspace (TMA). ANSP action: "Establish ATC back up procedures in case of GNSS outage for all phases of flight" is, as stated, valid for all phases of flight.

Amend ANSPs actions to reflect comments above. Proposed text in new header Terminal Airspace "Implement minimum route spacing in the SID and STAR network to meet network performance targets"

2.3.2.2 Accepted The text will be amended as proposed.

Norway AVINOR

56. 5.2.4 Potential ANSP actions (including airports) in Final Approach

What is your definition of instrument runway? Is it any runway end with CAT 1 capability; or is it any runway end where an operator can operate under IFR conditions.

From a safety perspective, it is interesting to replace all conventional NPA. Also, RNP (GNSS) Approaches may be deployed into locations where conventional NPA was not possible. From a cost efficiency perspective (ANSP/Airport), decommissioning of traditional navigational aids. Accordingly, we encourage the deployment of RNP (GNSS) Approaches at any runway end where an operator can operate under IFR conditions.

Clarify your definition of instrument runway.

2.3.2.2 Accepted An instrument runway is a runway that currently has an instrument approach procedure such as a precision approach or an NPA.

Belgium EBAA

57. 5.2.4 Potential Stakeholder actions

Some items need to be harmonised at a higher level. Some actions need to be addressed for instance at EU level (Eurocontrol for instance), like GNSS policy. The risk is that each State will develop his own policy with different requirements from neighbouring States thus causing delay in harmonised implementation, without some external and higher level guidelines. This is particularly true for instance regarding the implementation of A-RNP operations in TMA with RF legs and the timescale considered.

The reason for the late introduction of GNSS approaches at European level is due to different approach held by European States in handling GNSS matter. This has happened because there was no EU guidelines on this subject.

2.3.2.2 Noted The matter will be further addressed during the drafting of the rule.

Italy ENAV SpA

58. 5.2.4 Potential Stakeholder actions - ANSP

ANSP: Establish back up procedures in case if GNSS outages for all phases of flight. Guidance material should be foreseen to have a harmonised European picture (possibly depending on airspace density).

Back up procedures should be harmonised in order to allow rationalisation of conventional navigation and reduction of the necessary avionics equipment.

2.3.2.9 Accepted The matter will be further addressed during the drafting of the rule.

Switzerland Skyguide


- 67 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


59. 5.2.4 Potential Stakeholder actions- ANSP

"Deploy LNAV/APV procedures by the end if 2020 either to replace existing conventional procedures..." LNAV shall not be implemented to replace existing conventional procedures but conventional non-precision approach procedures. Please correct.

Correction needed. 2.3.2.2 Accepted The words ''non-precision approach'' will be added as proposed.


60. 5.2.4 Potential Stakeholder actions- Members States

"Member States: Approve GNSS as primary means of navigation for all phases of flight"

Under the SES regulation context, a simple general statement as provided in RAD is not sufficient and does not cover important aspects. Having regard to the issue outlined in Comment 1 above (7), legal approach shall be found in order to allow European States to identify and establish an approval process. This legal approach shall be defined and endorsed by EASA or other appropriate bodies at European level.


Accepted The point of the applicability of SES to GPS/GNSS is under consideration at present. The matter was discussed with the SSC in 2010 and is likely to be discussed further in early 2013. The matter should be clarified before PBN enters into force, i.e. before 2015.


61. 6 There is no reference in this chapter on the crew training required by the NSA for approval.

The crew training is a long task and may be an issue for some aircraft operators.

2.3.2.2 Noted It is expected that training will be very much similar to current training for RNAV procedures, which can be done during OPC/LPC and training sessions. Ops approval material will need to document specific requirements, if any.

France DGAC

62. Para 6.2.2 Notice to Aircraft Operators

Will the specific characteristics referred to apply also to military platforms? Is the paragraph talking to transport type aircraft only when we know that other military platforms can, and do operate as GAT?

Request clarification of intent of paragraph.

As applicable. 2.3.2.7 Accepted This point will be fully clarified in the draft IR. There must be no doubt what kind of



- 68 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


operations and aircraft type are impacted. Example: only transport type state aircraft that operate as GAT IFR in designated airspace.

63. 6.2.3 Military Aircraft Operators

Again change 'may' to 'will be' in the sentence that refers to transition periods.

UK MOD view is that a transition period will be required.

As suggested. 2.3.2.7 Accepted The text will be modified as proposed.


64. 6.4 Airborne Exemption Policy Principles

Member States may grant exemptions to meet national prerogatives, provided such exemptions do not affect the implementation of the regulation in other EU Member States.

Member States should retain some power to influence its own state/FAB.

2.3.2.3 Noted All depends on the wording of the Regulation under EU law: if the Regulation expressly allows for the granting of exemptions, exemptions are then allowed at the conditions expressly stated in the Regulation (e.g. See Commission Regulation No 29/2009 (DLS), Commission Regulation No 1207/2011 (SUR), etc.). If the Regulation does not foresee exemptions, exemptions are not allowed. It should be noted that under EU law, a Regulation has general application, is binding in its

Ireland IAA


- 69 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


entirety and directly applicable in all Member States (Article 288 TFEU).

65. 6.2.4 This section ignores the issue of equipment non-availability due to certain segments of the market not yet being served with appropriate solutions.

New GA/AW avionics may not currently include all the functions and performance requirements set out in option 1, 2 or 3. Relying on high-end e.g. Honeywell or Smiths systems will not encourage equipage. It is surely a requirement of a mandate that appropriate solutions should be available to the market?

Add text to clarify that availability of solutions may be an issue for GA/AW.

2.3.2.8 Accepted It is realised that this is an issue. The applicability criteria for aircraft equipage will be further detailed to determine to which classes of aircraft the rule will apply.


66. 6.2.5 The statement "the expected benefits of PBN will only be maximised if its application is implemented across the totality of EATMN airspace" completely ignores the potential disbenefit of access to airspace being heavily reduced as a result of this IR. Given the contribution of GA (and some small regional a/c) to the economy, this will likely far outweigh the minor fuel savings that may be gained in low-medium density airspace, and possibly even in high density TMAs.

The economic value of access to airspace for the variety of business models currently in operation today should be taken into account. If the new mandate effectively blocks access to airspace for a large proportion of GA users, this economic value will be reduced. This also applies to section 9.4.

Re-work first sentence. If the comment is better captured elsewhere, add a section to express the main point. Update economic impact assessment in section 9.4 accordingly.

2.3.2.5 Accepted It is not the intention that the PBN IR should result in some parts of the GA fleet being priced out of the market. Nor it is intended to block access to airspace to any category of airspace users. If evidence is available to show that this would be the effect, remedial measures could be proposed. The statement in section 6.2.5 is intended to indicate the value of a harmonised PBN IR relative to a range of various local regulations.



- 70 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


67. 6.2.6 Business Case Issues and Possible Financial Incentive Scheme

Will the military platforms be considered when looking at financial incentive schemes to encourage early equipage? The positive business case for the military is already questionable (as we know).

Request clarification. None. 2.3.2.52.3.2.7

Noted Since military aircraft are exempted from the retrofit requirement, incentives would not be relevant for military aircraft. However, states must recognise that, if they wish to improve the quality of commercial air navigation in their airspace, one of the costs may be to equip their state aircraft with avionics compatible with the requirements they impose on other users of the airspace.


68. 6.2.6 Business case

Reasonable incentive rules must be in place before this IR comes into force.

Experience from previous IRs (e.g. Mode S, 833VEX) is, that large investments on the AU side still have not resulted in any measurable operational benefit. In both cases potential incentives for AUs with negative business cases were never even discussed after those IRs came into force.

2.3.2.5 Noted Clearly, to be effective, any incentives would have to be available in time to encourage early equipage. However, the case for incentives has not yet been accepted.


69. 6.2.8. - 6.4. - 9.4 For some models produced after 2000, including models still in production, requiring the retrofit of select capabilities, such as "advanced RNP (1 NM TSE)", may be impractical. Eurocontrol should specifically invite comments to the draft Implementing Rule about what models should be explicitly exempted from an equipment mandate including those produced after 2000.

GAMA members have indicated that some avionics configurations on aircraft produced after 2000, including specific models currently in production, are prohibitive to retrofit with several of the capabilities identified in the ENPRM. In previous Single European Sky Implementing Regulations, such as Link 2000,

Invite community feedback about what make-model aircraft and equipment combinations that should be identified as exempted from a mandate, including models produced after

2.3.2.3 Accepted The matter will be further addressed during the drafting of the rule.

United States GAMA


- 71 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


provisions were created for exempting an aircraft model following the finalization of the rule. A specific example is the Link 2000 "exemption cell" and its process. It is GAMA's view that the Link 2000 exemption cell, while having become essential for the Link 2000 program implementation, should not be considered a model for other programs. GAMA recommends that Eurocontrol specifically solicit input from the community in the draft Implementing Rule consultation about specific make-model aircraft and equipment combinations that warrant an exemption in the regulation to avoid, or at least minimize, the cumbersome process for exemptions for the Link 2000 program under Article 14.

2000.

70. 6.3 - 5.2.2 - and Table 1

Eurocontrol identifies general air traffic operated under IFR as the primary focus of the ENPRM and states that the "class of aircraft to which the rule will apply must be defined." If Eurocontrol includes small (Part / CS-23) airplanes and small- / mid-size transport category (Part / CS-23) airplanes in the mandate, the agency should consider establishing a baseline equipage capability based on E/TSO-C146 which is common on airplanes of this size. Additionally, Eurocontrol should consider the benefits of excluding small airplanes from the PBN mandate equipage outside the approach environment.

E/TSO-C146 is the common equipment capability on Part / CS-23 airplanes and small- / mid-size business jet airplanes and is supported by the deployment of EGNOS across Europe. Eurocontrol identifies capability for Final Approach (and to some extent Terminal Airspace) that is mostly supported by E/TSO-C146 equipment.

Ensure that E/TSO-C146 equipped aircraft meet the PBN mandate where required. Exclude small airplanes from PBN mandate equipage outside the approach environment.

2.3.2.2 Accepted The objectives and requirements of the implementing rule will be adjusted accordingly to ensure that E/TSO-C146 equipped aircraft meet the PBN mandate where required and that small airplanes are excluded from PBN mandate equipage outside the approach environment.

United States GAMA

71. 6.4 Airborne exemptions should be defined more clearly and guidance material or means of compliance for approval should be available prior to implementation, ideally during phase 1 (2014-2020).

The lack of documentation clearly identifying the exemptions will result in a part of operators not retrofitting their fleet.

2.3.2.3 Accepted The matter will be further addressed during the drafting of the rule. Clarity will be provided.

France DGAC


- 72 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



Due to the equipage level of many cargo-only aircraft, and the use of such aircraft exclusively during night operations when the overall level of air traffic is greatly reduced, an Airborne Exemption Policy applicable to such aircraft should be established.

Member States should retain some power to influence its own state/FAB.

2.3.2.3 Noted The matter will be further addressed during the drafting of the rule. Clarity will be provided.

Ireland IAA


UK MOD would look for exemptions for platforms with out of service date close to implementation dates.

Statement of intent. None. 2.3.2.7 Noted To be considered during the drafting of the IR.


74. 7.2 - Enclosure 1 Requirements for conformity assessment of ATS-systems are not clearly stipulated. The text could be misunderstanding.

ATS-systems have to be covered by conformity assessment.

N/A Accepted Clarification will be provided.

Germany German NSA

75. 8. Means of Compliance With The Draft Implementing Rule

The Advanced RNP navigation specification referenced in the Regulatory Approach is the specification taken from the Updated ICAO PBN Manual, Doc 9613 and modelled on FAA AC 90-105 (currently being updated to reflect the ICAO navigation specification). In the interests of International harmonisation, it is vital that this specification is the one reflected in the EASA CS-ACNS and AMC material.

Experience of AMC 20-26, AMC 20-27 and AMC 20-28 which all differ slightly from the ICAO and FAA criteria and create an uneven playing field and costs to industry and operators.

None. 2.3.2.4 Noted The comment is duly noted. It is the EASA intent to transpose all the navigation specification published in the draft 2012 edition of ICAO Doc 9613 into appropriate certification and operational approval standards to enable not only PBN operation within Europe but the global application.

United Kingdom CAA

76. 8. Means of Compliance With The Draft Implementing Rule

The ICAO Advanced RNP navigation specification can best be described as a bundle of RNP RNAV capability that resides on many in-service aircraft today. There should be an acknowledgment that the Implementing Rule is not specifying new requirements but facilitating application of existing modern aircraft capability by

Experience of AMC 20-26, AMC 20-27 and AMC 20-28 which all differ slightly from the ICAO and FAA criteria and create an uneven playing field and costs to industry and operators.

None. 2.3.2.4 Accepted The intent of this comment is fully acknowledged. In drafting the detailed Implementing Rule requirements and the EASA

United Kingdom CAA


- 73 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


formalising a functional and performance framework. In so doing, this should avoid regulatory re-examination or at least minimise the burden on aircraft manufacturers in terms of compliance assessment for those aircraft already with a demonstrated RNP capability.

airworthiness and operational standards due account will be taken to minimise the impact on OEM and operators with respect to existing approvals.

77. 9. Impact Assessment (General)

It is not clear if General Aviation and Military costs have been included and what is the distribution of costs?

Clarification requested. None. 2.3.2.5 Rejected GA costs have been included, as indicated in figure 5 of Annex E. Multiplication of the values in row I of this table shows the total cost to GA to be about €92m. No military costs have been included since military aircraft are exempt from the retrofit requirement.

United Kingdom CAA

78. 9. Impact Assessment (General)

We note from our own experiences that benefits are scalable and therefore prioritisation should be considered where possible.

Observation. Suggest that the Impact Assessment take account of prioritisation and a more targeted approach per the Alternative Proposal, rather than the blanket assessment being required by Option 2.

2.3.2.5 Accepted Targeted approach will be considered during the extended impact assessment.

United Kingdom CAA

79. 9.2 - page 35 - option 1 - point n° 5

The phrase in the text somehow might give the impression that presently there is a considerable possibility of experiencing such interaction which of course is not the case.

Request text change reduces further the possibility of interactions



80. 9.2 - page 35 - option 1 and 2 - point n° 1

Describe the area of improvement in a better way (Accuracy improves)

Request text change better and more accurate adherence




- 74 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


81. 9.2 - page 36 - option 1 - point n° 7

Need for further clarification It should be mentioned why it needs less technical changes

2.3.2.6 Accepted The text will be amended to read: "Option 1 is the option that requires the fewer changes to on board and ground system compared with Options 2 and 3.


82. 9.2 - page 36 - option 2 - Point n° 2

What is a systematic and predictable way of proceeding?

Need for clarification, we do not understand what is meant by this.

2.3.2.6 Accepted Footnote will be added "TPO is a way of formalising the overtaking between aircraft already applied in current operations ensuring a uniform and predictable way of proceeding".


83. 9.3 Safety Assessment: The safety assessment shall be validated by EASA. The issues and/or assumptions identified during the safety assessment for each of the proposed options (refer to section 9.3) should liaise with the necessary EASA regulatory material, e.g. memory storage of FMS Data base, common cause analysis (GNSS failure modes)...

Need for clarification 2.3.2.6 Accepted Validation by EASA is part of the process. Full consistency with EASA regulatory material will be ensured.

France AIRBUS

84. 9.3 "The operational continuity has been assessed independently from the regulatory options in order to assess the potential impact of a failure of the PBN system. As a result, a set of high-level requirements has been identified in order to ensure safe operation in case of PBN system failure". What is meant in this paragraph by "PBN system failure"?

2.3.2.6 Accepted What is meant is GNSS outage, i.e. signal in space failure. The text will be amended accordingly.

France DGAC

85. 9.4 Economic and Efficiency Impact

It is unclear how the exemption process would work for older aircraft. • This process, if implemented, would need further consideration e.g., who would be responsible for administering exemptions,

It is the view of the UK that: • There must be incentives to encourage operators to re-equip. • Some retrofit costs will be lower than others, therefore specific

Ensure consistency between the Regulatory Approach and the Economic Impact Assessment and

2.3.2.5 Noted The process is yet to be defined, but it should be noted that a similar process is also

United Kingdom CAA


- 75 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


EASA or individual States? There is a cost involved. • Exemptions under the PBN IR could limit the UK’s ability to implement FAS and would limit the benefits that could be delivered to operators. It acts as a disincentive and operators will maintain those aircraft for as long as is practicable.

retrofitting could still deliver benefits. • Lower standards could be applied to aircraft that operate mainly at night, e.g., freighter aircraft. • Benefits must be available to those that spend the money – operators must not be required to spend so that ANSPs reap the benefits. • From experience, operational ‘dis-benefits’ are often the driver for re-equipage, e.g., North Atlantic. • Economic analysis seems to be at odds with the main Regulatory Approach Document – Could lead to objections to move forward.

suggest that reasons for comment could be incorporated.

required for other IRs, e.g. Data link services. Consideration will be given to incorporating the reasons for the comment.


For the exemption system to work as efficiently as possible and for simplification of ATC operations UK CAA feels that the exemption process should keep the number of non-compliant aircraft to the minimum which is considered reasonably practicable. With this in mind the proportion of exempt aircraft presented in the documentation seems quite high. UK CAA assumes that routes would need to be provided for the non-compliant aircraft as an exemption would allow them the right to operate through the airspace. There is hence the possibility that the routes specifically implemented to cater for non-compliant aircraft could actually end up being less congested than those for compliant aircraft. This could therefore provide no driver for re-equipping and thereby cause less efficiency than is desired or could otherwise be achieved. Furthermore this could also therefore call into question the amount of investment an ANSP is prepared to make in re-designing airspace and procedures and accommodation of non-compliant aircraft.

Observation. EUROCONTROL is invited to note the comment above.

2.3.2.5 Noted The comment is noted. However, the high cost of increasing the proportion of aircraft required to retrofit must be borne in mind. Further information is also required from the ANSPs regarding the manner in which they would handle non-equipped aircraft and the constraints which these aircraft would place upon their ability to implement enhanced procedures.

United Kingdom CAA


- 76 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



It is not clear how to exempt in-frequent users e.g., longer routes/delays?

Observation. Clarification requested. 2.3.2.5 Noted The procedure is still to be determined.

United Kingdom CAA


It is not clear how the Implementing Rule will incentivise operators and ANSPs e.g., Best Equipped Best Served Principle? There should be a way of encouraging operators not to wait until the last possible date to comply and we don’t get into the last mover advantage situation.

Observation. Clarification requested. 2.3.2.5 Noted The Rule represents a legal requirement, which is considered incentive enough for compliance by the specified deadlines. However, financial incentives to encourage earlier equipage by aircraft operators could be considered.

United Kingdom CAA


There is no link to the SES Performance Scheme and indeed the lack of a link to the Performance Reference Periods seems a missed opportunity to link airspace enhancements to both Network and Airport targeted improvements.

Observation. Take account of the above comment in the economic impact assessment.

2.3.2.5 Noted The timescales for the implementation of the Rule are based on practical requirements and the generally accepted convention of giving aircraft operators an overall notice period of about seven years. ANSPs will have the opportunity to include the consequences of enhanced navigation capabilities within their performance plans for RP2.

United Kingdom CAA


- 77 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


90. 9.4 Economic and Efficiency Impact and E.4 Financial Evaluation

We submit that a benefit from improved controller productivity only comes in the longer term as a result of a reduced growth of numbers of controllers. As soon as a controller is employed they will remain on the company books unless that employment is terminated, in which case there is invariably a cost.


2.3.2.5 Rejected The controller productivity benefit included in the economic impact statement arises from a reduced rate of increase in the numbers of controllers required. A reduction in controller numbers is not envisaged.

United Kingdom CAA


ANSP costs should include environmental consultation, addressing planning restrictions etc especially in terminal airspace re-designs. From our experience, these costs can be significant in any major airspace re-design.


2.3.2.5 Noted The costs were intended to include these factors and were influenced by an assessment of these aspects made for a study of French airports. However, given the planning procedures in the UK, it is possible that costs in the UK could be higher and we would be pleased to consider alternative values. However, the values used in the assessment should be representative of the whole of Europe.

United Kingdom CAA


There seems to be no account of Business Risk in the costs. Whilst this may not be an issue for State organisations it is definitely a major consideration for commercial ones.


2.3.2.5 Rejected A number of the most significant risks were assessed in the sensitivity analysis, which

United Kingdom CAA


- 78 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


indicated that the return on investment was quite resilient to major risks.


From our experience in the UK market place, ANSP costs for procedure design seems to be on the low side.


2.3.2.5 Noted The costs were developed by EUROCONTROL based on the experiences of a number of ANSPs. However, we would be pleased to consider further inputs.

United Kingdom CAA


Regulator costs are not nil. One has to consider the number of airspace change applications, exemptions to be issued, scale of airspace change, timeframe for the change (staff and accommodation). Mandates tend to create peaks.


2.3.2.5 Accepted This fact was noted in the assessment. We would be pleased to receive proposed inputs for these costs.

United Kingdom CAA


The sensitivity analysis does not address the mixed fleet operations as a consequence of the exemption policy.


2.3.2.5 Rejected The assessment assumed that benefits would be proportional to the proportion of flights by equipped aircraft above a level of about 75% and thus mixed fleet operations were implicitly taken into account. However, the validity of this assumption remains to be confirmed and we would welcome inputs from ANSPs regarding their approach to handling a mixed

United Kingdom CAA


- 79 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


fleet. 96. 9.4 Economic and

Efficiency Impact and E.4 Financial Evaluation

Not a huge amount of evidence for terminal airspace changes and indeed, the en-route is largely simulator based. The assessment seems to have little actual benefits.


2.3.2.5 Rejected It is normal for new ATM concepts to be evaluated using simulations. In this assessment, practical experience of enhanced navigation capabilities at US airports has been included. No equivalent data was available from European airports.

United Kingdom CAA


There is no sense of sensitivity from the ‘theoretical’ to the ‘operational’ environment.


2.3.2.5 Although the sensitivity analysis was not described in the brief summary of the appraisal in paragraph 9.4 of the main text of the REGAP document, it was presented in Annex E in section E.4.2.3, together with a consideration of the effects of changing the age exemption in section E.4.2.4.

United Kingdom CAA


The UK CAA recognises the difficulty in making an economic assessment and believe that having a phased approach would allow better understanding of the costs and the benefits e.g., projects such as Schiphol and London Airspace Management Programmes pre-2020.

Observation. None. 2.3.2.5 Noted Considerable difficulty was experienced in obtaining information for this assessment. We would welcome further inputs.

United Kingdom CAA


- 80 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


99. 9.4 Economic and Efficiency Impact and E.4.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis

The rate of return (22%) seems high and it is not clear over what time period it is based i.e., life-cycle of the project.


2.3.2.5 Rejected The assessment covered an operating period of 10 years from the IR deadline, i.e. to 2030. The rate of return is a direct consequence of the assumptions used.

United Kingdom CAA

100. 9.4 Economic and Efficiency Impact and E.4.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis

The 4% rate for public sector is likely to be insufficient for a commercial organisation.


2.3.2.5 Noted The 4% quoted is the test rate used by EUROCONTROL and the EU for infrastructure investments and was quoted for comparison. The PBN investments yield a return of 22% (based on the assumptions used), which is considerably above the 4% rate and compares with the level required for venture capital investments.

United Kingdom CAA

101. 9.4 "The rate of return of 22% achieved by Option 2 is a good one and comfortably exceeds the EC threshold rate of 4% for public sector infrastructure". Can you explain "the rate of return of 22%"?

2.3.2.5 Accepted The 22% rate of return is the return on all investments by all parties involved, including aircraft operators, ANSPs and (if values were available) NSAs. Given that ANSP (and NSA) costs will accrue to aircraft operators through route

France DGAC


- 81 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


charges, the ANSPs will recover their costs and the 22% will be the average return achieved by the aircraft operator population as a whole. The return to each individual aircraft operator will depend on a number of factors such as the fleet age, intensity of aircraft utilisation and where the aircraft operate.

102. 9.4 Several user groups are mentioned in section 9. A breakdown of the economic impact needs to be carried out for each main user group. The lack of this analysis has led to a lack of clarity on the real impact of each function or additional requirement included in the options. This is particularly the case if considered NPV. Since GA do not get significant benefits from the introduction of A-RNP, the NPV is minimal (if not negative). This only becomes evident when conducting a user-by-user analysis.

For example, if Baro-VNAV is required, what is the cost? What is the operational benefit? Therefore, do we really need to mandate VNAV across the entire European airspace? If RF legs are required, what is the likely impact? What is the cost to the user? Should it be implemented in all TMAs?

Add user group segmentation to impact assessment. We require this before decisions can be made on exact functionality to be included in IR.

2.3.2.5 Accepted Section E 4.2.2 of Annex E deals with this issue. If benefits can be allocated to user groups on the basis of the proportion of flight hours indicated in figure 7 of this annex, then commercial airlines would experience a large positive NPV, regional airlines would experience a small positive NPV, whilst GA would suffer a small net loss. The NPV values can be included in a revised annex.

Germany German NSA


- 82 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


103. 9.4 - Enclosure 1 It should carefully be analysed if incentives for ANSP are necessary.

ANSP's costs are much less than the Operator's costs

Instead of Incentives a cost-pass-through rule could be a better solution. Pass-through means, the ANSP's costs for implementing PBN are outside the performance scheme.

2.3.2.5 Rejected No costs should be excluded from the performance scheme. However, in RP2, ANSPs will be measured against their performance plans. These plans should include the ANSP investment required to implement the PBN IR. Thus ANSPs will not be 'penalised' for implementing the Rule.

Germany German NSA

104. 9.4 Economic and Efficient Impact

The economic benefit looks over optimistic and not realistic regarding the payback expected by 2024 for the aircraft retrofit and the ANSP.

2.3.2.5 Noted The benefits are derived directly from the assumptions made. Thus, if the benefits appear high, indication should be given of any assumption which is questioned.

Switzerland Skyguide

105. 9.5 Impact on Civil-Military Organisation

No indication of Military costs – even having a baseline cost.


2.3.2.52.3.2.7

Rejected Military aircraft are proposed to be exempt from the retrofit requirement. For the purposes of the assessment, it is assumed that in the baseline case (no PBN IR) aircraft operators, including the military, would still equip new aircraft with suitable PBN

United Kingdom CAA


- 83 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


avionics. Therefore the implementation of the Rule would impose no incremental costs on the military. Military equipage will thus be on a voluntary basis and not as a consequence of the Rule.


The CAA is interested in seeing the compensatory incentives expanded and see the opportunity to see incentives being triggered either through an appropriate cost sharing scheme or subsidy. However, we recognise that commercial operators would be unlikely to support such a move, although a good understanding of the benefits would help support future incentive schemes.


2.3.2.52.3.2.7

Noted At this stage incentives are presented as a possible option for accelerating aircraft equipage and no firm plans are presented. If incentives are agreed they must be applicable to all aircraft operators. Proposals could be presented at a future stage if required.

United Kingdom CAA


2nd sub-paragraph Concur that some State aircraft will never be PBN compliant - are these aircraft to be accommodated with respect to airspace use or denied access completely? 4th sub-paragraph Again clarify what is meant by new transport type State aircraft. 5th sub-paragraph Not sure what value added with this statement as a “do nothing” scenario is not being proposed. Suggest the paragraph is removed. 6th sub-paragraph UK MOD would like to see an exemption for

As above. As applicable. 2.3.2.52.3.2.7

Noted It is intended that non-equipped state aircraft should be accommodated in the airspace in a similar manner to exempted civil aircraft. Transport type state aircraft are aircraft operated by state bodies but which do not have specific martial

United Kingdom MOD


- 84 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


aircraft with out of service date of 2025. This chimes with other Implementing Rules such as ACID, SPI and 8.33 VCS. 8th sub-paragraph In this respect, the UK MOD supports the opinion of the MilHaG.

capabilities (e.g. they are not fighters or bombers). The exemption of military aircraft from the retrofit requirement would cover the suggested out of service exemption. Non equipped aircraft are to be accommodated through transition arrangements/conventional support. New transport aircraft means aircraft entering into service or operational aircraft suffering major mid life upgrades. Agree to remove 5th paragraph. 2025 sunset date will be considered during the IR drafting. Minimum regulatory coverage will be identified as the preferred one by the MILHAG.

108. 9.5 "2) transition arrangements and obligations for the air traffic service providers to accommodate other types of State aircraft and fleets with lower capability." What kind of arrangements and obligations will apply to the ATSP? Does it mean that the State aircraft and fleet with lower capability shall be radar vectored by the ATC, or that the

2.3.2.7 Noted ATSPs will be requested to accommodate non equipped traffic as needed to enable unrestricted airspace access. The service

France DGAC


- 85 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


airspace management policy will ensure the mixed traffic?

provided and fall back procedures will depend of PBN functionality in question. See today’s practices in regards to B-RNAV and P-RNAV.

109. 9.5 - Enclosure 1 Exemptions for state aircraft should only be granted for fighter aircraft, not for transport aircraft.

Civil and Military aircraft operators should equally be treated.

2.3.2.7 Noted Exemptions are to be granted to transport aircraft only when out of service date is too close to the implementation date. Transport type aircraft must be subject of forward fit regulatory provisions but with longer transition periods to cope with longer military procurement cycles, fleet size, technical constraints and multiple variants.

Germany German NSA

110. 9.5 - §4 - page 39 French MoD has long procurement cycles for new aircraft programmes. "New aircraft" are often ordered more than ten years before their entry into service. The concept of "new transport type State aircraft" is therefore confusing.

A400M specifications were initially stated in the procurement contract and cannot be modified without extra funding. Some A400M aircraft will be delivered later than the date of entry into force of the PBN rule. The French MoD does not want A400Ms to be considered as "new transport State aircraft" so that they should comply with PBN aircraft functionalities.

Replace: "1) Some measures for new transport type State aircraft to be compliant with..;" By: "1) Some measures for new transport type State aircraft programmes contracted later than a defined date to be compliant with..."

2.3.2.7 Accepted To be considered during the drafting of the IR. Notion of new aircraft clarified in response to comment 52.

France DSAE/DIRCAM

111. 9.5 - §4 - page 39 Due to technical and budgetary reasons, some State aircraft such as combat aircraft will never be equipped with the aircraft

Rafale aircraft is RNAV 5 approved. Due to the specificities of navigation systems designed for combat

Replace: "2) transition arrangements and obligations for the air

2.3.2.7 Accepted When it comes to fighters the arrangements

France DSAE/DIRCAM


- 86 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


functionalities of option 1. So "transition arrangements" to accommodate them only for a defined period are not appropriate. Permanent arrangements must be issued to accommodate those aircraft.

mission combined with the lack of space in the cockpit, compliance with option 1 aircraft functionalities cannot be met.

traffic service providers..." By: "2) arrangements and obligations for the air traffic service providers..."

must be permanent without prejudice of potential performance based compliance opportunities.

112. 9.6 Publication of EASA implementing measures. Consistency between the SES implementing rules and the EASA implementing rules shall be established. SES rules should establish the "what" (PBN type), "where" (airspace volumes) and "when" (date). EASA rules should establish the "how" (safety requirements, demonstration of compliance). Synchronization between airborne equipage mandate and related certification material publication shall be effective. This document should present the plans for the EASA publications to enable PBN operations. The list of necessary rules of each option is missing. This list should include the following publications: EASA rule on a/c & avionics certification (existing,; modified or new); EASA rule on ground based systems and constituents; EASA rules on OPS approval (including flight crew training and ops procedures); EASA Navigation Data for Avionics; EASA rules for Airspace designers; EASA rules for ATS procedures; EASA rules for ADR operations; EASA rules for oversight of pen-E ANSP (EGNOS, GALILEO...).

Need for clarification 2.3.2.1 2.3.2.4

Accepted The requirement to ensure consistency between the SES interoperability regulation and the EASA regulatory framework is fully recognised in particular the establishment of “what, where, when” and the “how” requirements. Via the development of the required rules and standards in accordance with EASA rulemaking programme and the appropriate co-ordination during the comitology process the timely availability of the appropriate certification and operational standards should be ensured.

France AIRBUS

113. 9.7 Comparison of Regulatory Options

There are no differences in costs and benefits for Options 1 and 3. As these options are not quantified we cannot make enough of an assessment. For example, it may be practicable to consider Option 1 as a


2.3.2.5 Noted It was intended to prepare an analysis of all three options but problems were

United Kingdom CAA


- 87 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


precursor to Option 2? encountered in obtaining sufficient reliable information. Option 2 represents the full scope of what might be achieved by 2021 and some studies and analysis have been carried out for this case. An initial cost estimate for aircraft equipage was available from industry and simulations have been carried out at the European Airspace Validation Unit in Budapest. No similar information was readily available for Options 1 and 3. Consideration was given to deriving costs and benefits for Option 1 from the Option 2 values but, since the costs of providing the various aircraft functionalities is not incremental, no reliable method was found for sub-dividing Option 2 costs to provide Option 1 costs. Similarly, no


- 88 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


method of modifying the productivity benefits from the Budapest simulations was found. It was concluded that any Option 1 costs and benefits produced on this basis could be more misleading than helpful. The problem with Option 3 is that part of the underlying technology required is still under development, as is the operational concept under which it would be introduced. The reliability of any cost and benefit estimates would therefore be limited until such time as the relevant concepts had been further developed. A more detailed appraisal of the preferred option will be carried out following the RAD consultation phase.

114. 9.7 - last para - Page 41

The conclusion that option 2 is considered the most appropriate basis for the

Due to the procurement cycles of the military it might not be possible to

Add remark at end of last para page 41 as

2.3.2.5 Noted The practicality of a staged

Germany AFSBw


- 89 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


development of the draft IR should be amended by a remark, leaving room for a staged approach.

incorporate all requirements for option 2 into the production of the next generation military transport aircraft. Therefore from a military perspective an approach to achieve option 2 via option 1 as a first step should be mentioned as alternative.

follows: "Remark: In order to permit the equipage of military transport aircraft with the technology to achieve the mandated performance requirements and functionalities it might be advisable to initially limit the IR to option 1 with a view to reach option 2 at a later date."

implementation is to be determined. A specific treatment of new military aircraft may be more appropriate.

115. Annex A 2.6.1 The statement "A specific approval is requested for all PBN operations except for RNAV 5..." is not in line with EASA RMT.0256 and therefore not acceptable and should be deleted.

According to EASA RMT.0256 the Agency is aware that requesting and obtaining a SPA constitutes additional administrative task, especially for non-commercial operators. "This rulemaking task is hence necessary in order to review the necessity for SPA for all existing PBN applications, and, where appropriate, to amend the requirement." (see EASARMT.0256, 17 July 2012).

2.3.2.1 Rejected The statement that "A specific approval is requested for all PBN operations except for RNAV 5..." is the correct statement as it is the current regulatory situation. The EASA RMT.0256 is re-accessing the necessity for a specific approval with respect to PBN operations. The possible outcome of this RMT is not within the scope of the RAD.

Germany DFS AOPA Germany


- 90 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


116. Annex A - Page A-11 - A.2.9

This section has a lot of detail relating to the ESSP and its certification as the EGNOS operator which does not add value to the RAD.

This information is not relevant to the RAD. The European Commission currently has a selection process for the EGNOS Operator post 2013, and it is possible that the operator may change. EGNOS will remain a service within Europe provided by the EU irrespective of the actual operator, these paragraphs should be revised.

Delete second and third paragraphs of A 2.9

N/A Accepted The section dealing with EGNOS certification will be simplified; explicit references to ESSP will be deleted.

United Kingdom NATS

117. Annex A - Page A-16 - Table 2

Table 2 presents a navigation function in respect of Holding. Reduction of the size of the holding area to permit holds to be placed closer together or in more optimum locations.

This may be a Functional Requirement, but in respect of the IR, is it validated that PBN will allow smaller holding Areas? Initial RNAV hold designs indicate that application of PANS Ops material shows that at high level holding areas are comparable with VOR, but at lower level are larger than a corresponding VOR hold.

The assertion that RNAV holding functionality will produce holds which are smaller than corresponding conventional holds, needs to be validated.

2.3.2.2 Accepted The issue will be addressed during the drafting of the rule and the extended impact assessment.

United Kingdom NATS

118. Annex A - Page A4 - item e

Annex A Page A4 item e. States 'most aircraft are approved for RNAV 1'. This may be true for the commercial air transport fleet, but there are a significant number of aircraft that are not RNAV 1 compliant, the % of non-compliant aircraft varies widely across different airports. There are also different issues by operator sector. In particular: Some non-RNAV 1 charter operators are

the major customer at some regional airports.

Business aviation is generally well equipped, but operational approvals are low, mixed fleet and training / simulator availability are issues.

Freight aircraft many older types

Mixed mode operations are a constraining issue and action is required to increase the RNAV 1 compliance level.

Clarification on the scope of the RNAV equipage sought, flights or airframes.

2.3.2.2 Accepted RNAV 1 compliance level currently above 85% according to IATA survey. However, RNAV 1 is not proposed as part of the PBN IR.

United Kingdom NATS

119. Annex B - B.4 States that "The airworthiness certification and approval of operators for PBN" are outside the scope of the draft IR. This text implies that the aircraft approval is disjointed from the airspace and procedure implementation - it is unclear if this was the intention.

Clarification required on whether bodies like EASA will provide such certification, or whether it is in fact diluting equipage as a factor in implementing PBN.

2.3.2.4 Accepted In accordance with EASA rulemaking programme, EASA is preparing and planning to prepare the required rule and

United Kingdom NATS


- 91 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


standards to support European and global PBN implementation.

120. Annex C - C3 "En-route" and "Terminal" are not commonly defined within Europe and therefore the scope of requirement on users and ANSPs as determined by airspace type is confusing when applied to local airspace structures.

In the UK: . En-route airspace can encompass ATS routes which have bases as low as FL75 . Terminal airspace can encompass ATS routes up to FL195. . The majority of STARs start above FL195 in UK en-route airspace. . There is no clearly defined boundary between En-route and Terminal airspace and they can exist as contiguous adjacent structures with the same ATS route going through both. The use of FL195 as the cut off appears to be a convenient coincidence with the DFL and it not really related to current aircraft performance. Not many aircraft have an absolute ceiling of FL195 and therefore for those regional turboprop operators that can routinely fly above that level, profiling below FL195 to avoid equipping with FRT could have a negative impact on the Network. Not having FRT below FL195 will also mean that airspace planners will not be able to develop closely spaced parallel routes that start at the end of SIDs and allow for climb up to higher cruising levels. It will lead to complicated designs which will constrain maximising the efficiency of the airspace. As a differentiator for aircraft equipage, is FL195 the optimum level for mandatory carriage or airspace application? (Noted that FL245 is mentioned in the context of the Budapest

The IR should attempt to define the meaning of En-route and Terminal more clearly so that the requirements on each can be better understood. FRT En-route should be lower than FL195 (FL 120?) to recognise the need for continuity of ATS route design. Suggest that other differentiating levels should be evaluated, on the basis of equipage / cost/ benefit, even if only as a time limited transition phase.

2.3.2.2 Accepted The issues will be addressed during the drafting of the rule and the extended impact assessment.

United Kingdom NATS


- 92 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


simulations in Annex E2.2, and FL 285 in E-2.3.3) As an example, the lack of passenger oxygen in some aircraft constrains operations to below FL250; application of FL250 may reduce the number of aircraft requiring retrofit for FRT, TPO and Single time constraint.

121. Annex C - C3.3.2.1 Not having FRT En-route would severely limit the extent of any ATS route re-design and this will provide little benefit to the EATMN as a whole.

Without FRT, the use of A-RNP to support closely spaced parallel routes would be limited to short straight sections of route which have no turns in them. This would not advance airspace design from what is achievable today and it would not allow airspace planners to radically re-design airspace to achieve maximum efficiencies. This is applicable both within Fixed ATS route networks, including Transition airspace, and in DCT/Free route networks where turns to accommodate activated segregated airspace may be required.

2.3.2.2 Noted The rationale is understood, however it needs to be balanced with the issues related to cost and physical inability to implement FRT functionality on some aircraft types.

United Kingdom NATS

122. Annex C - C3.3.2.1 - Potential Stakeholder actions

The extent of modifications to the Fixed ATS route network to utilise A-RNP specifications is not clear.

The legislation needs to recognise that changes to airspace and the utilisation of PBN capabilities must be as a consequence of where benefits to the EATMN are clearly identified. In some remoter en-route airspace there would be no benefit from re-designating ATS routes to A-RNP if there are no other proximate routes or if the routes are already very ATM efficient in terms of route length. The need for reduced spacing "where required" is acknowledged in Annex A, A.3.1. There should not be a presumption that implementation everywhere is the default position. Option 1 can be interpreted as requiring implementations in all En-route airspace.

"ANPS will be required to implement reduced route spacing along straight segments of the fixed route network, where identified as contributing to the improvement of the EATMN performance and where enabling network targets to be met."


United Kingdom NATS


- 93 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


123. Annex C - C3.3.2.3 - C3.3.3.3 - C3.3.4.3 Potential Stakeholder Actions

ANSP stakeholder actions should not include the responsibility for Airports. Requirements on Airports should be placed separately from ANPSs.

The RAD assumes that all ANSPs have jurisdiction over airport procedures but this is not the case in the UK and possibly other EU states. The regulatory structure in the UK is such that each aerodrome authority owns its instrument flight procedures and is responsible for among other things, contracting procedure design and airspace design organisations for maintaining them or designing new ones. The Regulation should provide clarity that the authority that is normally responsible for maintenance and creation of instrument flight procedures is the entity responsible for implementation of Airport PBN procedures.

Detail Airport stakeholder actions separately from ANSP actions.

2.3.2.2 Accepted This is linked to Comment nr 296 below. ANSPs and airports are different entities and have different responsibilities. Obligations foreseen in the context of PBN should be therefore assessed and should be aimed at the right addressee.

United Kingdom NATS

124. Annex C - C3.3.2.3 - Potential Stakeholder actions

Request clarification. Under ANSP stakeholder actions, it is not clear whether ALL airports are expected to introduce RNP approaches to replace existing conventional procedures. Discriminant of 5700kg seems to apply only to the development of RNP procedures for new instrument runways.

Many smaller airports with conventional procedures may not have terrain, weather or capacity issues that warrant the development of RNP APCH procedures.

2.3.2.2 Accepted Exemptions should be allowed where justified. See also response to comment No. 49.

United Kingdom NATS

125. Annex D - D.4.3.1 Typo. Last line, 'aircraft' s/b 'airways'. N/A Accepted Typo will be corrected.

United Kingdom NATS

126. Annex E - E2.3.1 It is not correct to say that PBN will result in shorter direct routes.

PBN will not always ensure that existing routes may be shortened or new shorter routes may be established, There are many other factors that airspace planners have to take into account when planning to maximise route efficiency: proximity of segregated airspace, Class G airspace, overflight of sensitive areas, all of which are not specifically related to an aircraft's track keeping ability.

Change statement to indicate that PBN can enable shorter routes in some cases.


United Kingdom NATS

127. Annex E - E3.1.1 There is no acknowledgement of airspace re-design costs as a result of PBN implementation en-route, or where there are consequent changes to aircraft profiles or

The RAD proposes to introduce A-RNP throughout the whole of the EATMN and this will require airspace changes to affect efficiencies. As a

The economic assessment as part of the extended RIA must address the economic

2.3.2.5 Accepted The comment is correct. An estimate of all costs should be

United Kingdom NATS


- 94 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


tracks over the ground and where environmental consultation has to take place.

consequence it is not just the cost of procedure design for airport approaches to be borne but the cost associated with environmental consultation and the risk to the programme that this brings. These total costs have a material effect on any business case and therefore the scope of the regulatory changes must be focussed where these total costs can be justified by the benefits to the EATMN as a whole.

impact on ANSPs from all attendant costs, not just RNP APCH procedure design and controller training.

included.

128. Annex E - E3.2.5 It states that by 2020, 20% of flights will not be fully compliant with all PBN capabilities. This figure appears unmanageable by ANSPs.

This may or may not be problematic depending on the specific PBN capabilities these flights do not have. For instance where closely spaced routes have been introduced as required by the IR, a high percentage of flights not equipped with FRT would have a different impact to a high percentage of flights not equipped with VNAV or TPO.

The extended RIA should provide more detail on the percentage of flights, not just aircraft, not having each PBN functionality, so that airspace planners may plan on expected capabilities within future airspace designs.

2.3.2.5 Noted The assessment assumes that the aircraft fleet will move progressively from current capabilities to full PBN IR compliance. Whilst this would no doubt be useful to ANSPs, It is unlikely to be practical to estimate the proportion of flights with specific PBN functionalities during the transition to full equipage.

United Kingdom NATS

129. Annex E - E4.1 It is wrong to assume that en-route re-structuring will be as a result of FAB design.

The RAD is proposing A-RNP throughout the whole of the EATMN. This will include parts of an FIR that are not necessarily the focus FAB efficiencies and will not be re-designed under a FAB programme. Therefore additional ANSP costs will be incurred re-designing airspace outside FAB operational improvements.

The economic assessment as part of the extended RIA must address the economic impact on ANSPs from all attendant costs, not just procedure design and controller training.

2.3.2.5 Accepted The RAD suggests that further en-route flight efficiencies may be possible within FABs as a result of full PBN equipage. However, the extent of these improvements has not been determined

United Kingdom NATS


- 95 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


(although the RAD attempts to put the potential of such improvements within the context of current FAB proposals) and, as correctly noted, the additional costs of implementing further route changes should be included in the assessment.

130. Annex E, Para E.2.6 and E.4.1

The benefit analysis from the Phoenix PBN implementation was based on new RNAV 1 STARs, as noted in E.2.6. While it is reasonable to apply this conservative benefits estimate to similar airspace improvements at the "six major European airports" referenced in E.4.1, it would also only require RNAV 1 procedures to do so. Thus, it is not clear why a similar figure is extrapolated from the same benefits result at Phoenix for implementation of Advanced RNP procedures as "the value of more efficient TMA routes."

This inference should be validated by specific modelling of any additional benefits that could be derived from Advanced RNP procedures compared to the benefits from RNAV 1 in TMAs.

Revise the statements to indicate that the benefits are from studies of an RNAV 1 implementation. Otherwise, perform the modelling and revise the statements to include the expected benefits from Advanced RNP that are in addition to the benefits from RNAV 1.

2.3.2.5 Accepted The text will be modified as proposed. In the absence of better information, the Phoenix data was used to determine an order of magnitude for potential benefits in Europe.

United States FAA

131. Annex F - F3.4 For State aircraft to meet the IR requirements regarding navigation performance the actions stated are supported by NATS but there needs to be assurance that the proper governance arrangements to ensure compliance as fully as possible are put in place.

Migration to fully PBN airspace in all phases of flight will result in more systemisation of ATM. A customer base which is not homogenous makes management of non-capable flights much more problematic for ATC than today's operation. Exemptions should be time limited for these reasons.

The extended RIA should describe a framework for how these actions will take place and detail the processes to be followed to demonstrate compliance. Where aircraft cannot comply e.g. age, the IR should give consideration to proposing that wherever possible, these aircraft conduct their fights as OAT only or if not possible, as

2.3.2.2 Accepted The matter will be further addressed during the drafting of the rule and the extended RIA.

United Kingdom NATS


- 96 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


GAT but at times and at levels or along routes which are likely to be sub-optimal for the user.

132. Appendix E - Figure 2

The ENPRM, including the analysis in Appendix E, does not mention helicopters. Does this mean that all helicopters are exempt from the PBN mandate?

The ENPRM is silent on helicopters, but indirectly - in select places - identifies "aircraft" in the text.

Specifically identify the proposal and applicability to helicopters in the draft Implementing Rule and invite comments from the community.

2.3.2.3 Accepted It is intended that the implementing rule is not applicable to helicopters.

United States GAMA

133. Appendix E - Figure 5

GAMA has reviewed the cost analysis in Appendix E and request that Eurocontrol provide further context about the number of aircraft (1,842) and average retrofit cost (€50,000 per aircraft) identified in the table.

GAMA welcomes the detailed analysis of aircraft operations conducted by Eurocontrol to derive a subset of the general aviation and business aircraft fleet that would be subject to a mandate. GAMA would welcome an opportunity to review the details of the fleet analysis to determine if it aligns with other sources, especially if aircraft that are considered by Eurocontrol as not likely equip would be subject to access restrictions as a result. Additionally, the €50,000 may warrant further consideration to consider, if E/TSO-C146 equipment is the baseline for general aviation for the mandate, if it the estimated cost aligns with current typical costs to acquire and install this type of equipment on small piston engine powered airplanes, turboprop airplanes as well as small- / mid-size business jets.

Review fleet and cost data and provide additional detail as part of the draft Implementation Regulation consultation.

2.3.2.5 Accepted EUROCONTROL would welcome the opportunity to review the detailed fleet analysis with GAMA and receive further information on estimated equipage costs.

United States GAMA


- 97 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


134. C.2.2.3.3. The statement made by this paragraph is too generalising and should be altered.

Military airspace requirements for training exercises show a great degree of variance depending on the amount of aircraft involved, tactical manoeuvres to be trained and the types of weapons technology used. One key issue for mission effectiveness is the location of appropriate training airspace in acceptable distance to the location of military airbases.

Change para as follows: "Predicted military airspace requirements envisage a need for greater flexibility with respect to airspace dimensions and airspace location. Airspace design shall be conducted considering those military requirements."


Germany AFSBw

135. Chapter 10 - Par 10.1

"Increase access to airports through the introduction of arrival and departure routes and approach procedures based on common navigation performance requirements and functionalities in terminal airspace by 2020" It is unlikely that introduction of arrival and departure routes and approach procedures will be THE solution to increase airport access. Runway capacity is still the limiting factor (no increase in runways expected). The mentioned time frame of 2020 is unacceptable and needs to be in place much earlier Proposed timescales are unacceptable for two main reasons: 1. The aircraft are mostly capable now and that capability needs to be released; 2.the disconnect between airborne equipage and ground capability is totally unacceptable,

It is more likely that new ICAO procedures matching the RNP1 navigation capabilities whilst serving parallel runway operations will be better suited to increase airport access.

The proposed hybrid option put emphasis on the introduction of de-conflicting SIDS / STARS) and Airport operations that enhance the independent use of parallel runways including regulatory ICAO SARPS improvements (which by the way will contribute to the improvement of ATC performance)

2.3.2.2 Noted The implementing rule aims at establishing the necessary level navigation performance and functionalities to enable introduction of PBN operations, including improved SIDs and STARs and approaches. A disconnect between airborne equipage and ground capability is not proposed, on the contrary, a synchronisation in time is foreseen such as A-RNP operations are introduced as soon as the airborne capabilities make it possible.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 98 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


136. Chapter 2 - Page 10 - para 2.1

"Global interoperability of performance based applications is the ultimate goal, such that aircrew and aircraft systems will experience a seamless service globally" It is important to emphasize that global interoperability is not only dependent on the availability of harmonized aircraft systems, but for which also harmonized ground systems will be necessary.

It must be made clear in the text that also the ground systems are in need for harmonization in order to deliver promised benefits.

Include the text: "Global interoperability of PBN applications request the need for introduction of harmonized ground systems"


Belgium IATA/AEA


"The implementation of PBN procedures by ANSPs is also subject to regulatory approvals by the NSA". Although this par. is related to the institutional environment it is important for airlines to know whether the National Supervisory Authority (NSA) is fully knowledgeable and equipped to do this job properly in relation to the ins and outs of the technical content of the IR PBN. If a mandate goes ahead a credible plan is needed to ensure that all ANSPs implement new procedures and supporting ATC tools.

It has been proven in the past that the regulatory framework (NSA, EASA) is lagging behind and has shown to stall implementation of PBN Since a lot of ANSPs have no technical competence, a third party might be needed to ensure progress!

The PBN IR text must ensure that there is also an obligation for regulators to be synchronized in knowledge etc. to ensure that e.g. ops approvals can be granted upon the effective date of the IR.The text in Institutional and operational environment chapter need to address proposed solutions to the concerns expressed on PBN competences within ANSPs and NSAs

2.3.2.2 Noted The 7-year notice period is designed to take account also of the time necessary to complete the activities related to ops approval. Many States have already issued PBN implementation plans. These plans are taken into account when developing the proposals for the PBN IR. Involvement of regulators in the process is ensured through formal consultation as well as close coordination and cooperation with EASA during the development of the rule and the regulatory impact assessment.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 99 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



"It is anticipated that the spacing between routes may be reduced" The wording must be more firm. Introduction of RNP1 must automatically lead to a reduction in spacing between parallel routes. Route spacing between parallel routes is being proposed to be 7NM.

The PBN IR text should not provide promises to airlines. The PBN IR provides the building blocks in which desired improvements in route spacing to increase capacity can be implemented and where needed must be implemented.

Change proposal: "The PBN IR provide measures that allows a reduction in route spacing so that the needed enroute capacity can be achieved" It is believed that en-route separation / capacity can be further improved to e.g. 5 NM by making use of the SPI IR (surveillance mandate). Please consider the value of closer spacing in the light of the SPI IR.

2.3.2.2 Noted The draft RAD does not intend to provide promises. The document expresses the potential evolution that the rule could enable. During the drafting of the rule the exact obligations of all regulated parties will be clearly specified.

Belgium IATA/AEA


"increasing use may be made of Tactical Parallel Offset Operations..... along optimum trajectories in defined airspace volumes at particular times" Similar comment as above, text must be more firm.

"May be made" is a promise which does not guarantee / oblige the groundside to make use of the (invested) functionalities on board the aircraft.

The PBN IR must be firm for ANSPs to ensure that TPO will be implemented at locations to be determined before the PBN IR becomes effective and where it enhances en route capacity

2.3.2.2 Noted The draft RAD does not intend to provide promises. The document expresses the potential evolution that the rule could enable. During the drafting of the rule the exact obligations of all regulated parties will be clearly specified.

Belgium IATA/AEA


"Increasingly, traffic into Terminal airspace will be managed along ATS routes and metered in time. It is expected that outer and inner terminal holding facilities will continue to be used and that these may be redefined in both size and location, based on aircraft navigation performance Similar comment as above, text must be more firm.

The text contains too many and vague promises.

Change text proposal for IR PBN: "the IR PBN allows for redesign of terminal holding facilities at locations where required and needed, that will be agreed upon with airspace users before the effective date of the IR in order

2.3.2.2 Noted The draft RAD does not intend to provide promises. The document expresses the potential evolution that the rule could enable. During the drafting of the rule the exact obligations of all

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 100 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


to enhance the needed airspace capacity.

regulated parties will be clearly specified.

141. Chapter 3 + Annex C - Page 15

"In Terminal airspace, the lack of harmonized navigation capabilities leads to uncertainty about an aircraft's ability to operate safely on a specific terminal procedure and, therefore, presents a safety risk The lack of harmonized nav capabilities is put as a safety risk. However, this risk is nowadays mitigated by ATC through the application of the rule of the lowest common nominator, thereby ignoring the high end avionics in the aircraft. 30 % of the aircraft of the Airline Associations member airlines already have the required capabilities on board.

A safety risk is not a valid argument for introducing harmonized nav capabilities. Application of BEBS has high economic value for the mainline aircraft that comprise 67 % of the flights and occupy 85 % of the flying hours (Ref. Eurocontrol Regulatory Document It is not acceptable to develop alternative means of compliance for non-equipped aircraft to the detriment of the equipped.

The safety argument is not valid in this context and should be deleted The provision of the 'Best Equipped Best Served' (BEBS) concept as developed by SESAR needs to be fully embraced and be taken up in the PBN IR.


Comment regarding safety risk is valid. Safety risk will be recalculated. BEBS concept not yet fully finalised and/or adopted and cannot be used as base for provisions.

Belgium IATA/AEA

142. Chapter 3 + Annex C - par 3.1.1.2

...."the ultimate capacity target reaching the economic optimum for delay is approximately 0.35 minutes per flight and was recommended to be reached as soon as practicable. This would require further ATM improvements in particular for en-route operations" The text suggests that the 0.35 min/flight delay cannot be reached before the implementation of the IR PBN, i.e. before 2021.

The solution offered to reach the ultimate en route capacity target would be the implementation of the PBN IR. Again it is an invitation to ANSPs to do nothing until and including 2020 and wait until the deliverables of the PBN, which at this moment are described as promises (and not as real hard data) for the future.

The suggestion to wait until the PBN IR delivers its benefits is wrong and should be changed into actions in the transition period from now until the effective date of the PBN IR.


The draft RAD does not intend to provide promises. The document expresses the potential evolution that the rule could enable. During the drafting of the rule the exact obligations of all regulated parties will be clearly specified. It is not suggested to wait, in fact actions are needed before the applicability date, e.g. to deploy all APVs by the applicability date.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 101 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


Development/adaptation of ATC tools as well as airspace redesign will have to be undertaken by the applicability dates in order to introduce the new PBN operations.


"Furthermore, for the second reporting period (RP2) starting in 2015 during which the PBN IR mandate would become applicable, new performance targets need to be set as a consequence of the Commission Decision. An extension of RP1 KPIs to terminal control area and airport operations is planned...." It is not clear why RP2 is addressed as this performance period runs from 2015 u/i 2019, whilst the IR PBN is envisaged to become effective in 2021.

The periods seem not to overlap each other, so the question is why they are linked with each other? It would be more appropriate to mention RP3, and to hint on a discussion for performance targets when the PBN IR is in place and working.

Delete: It is not opportune to include performance RP2 period in the PBN IR text as the time frames do not have any relationship.


Belgium IATA/AEA


"The European ATM Master Plan has set even more challenging performance targets for the 2020+ timeframe based on operational improvements supported by new concepts such as TBO... " Why not mentioning these "even more challenging targets" in the text? By the way it is supposed that these targets are meant to refer to the ATM high level objectives, like 10 % safety increase, 50 % reduction in user charges etc? It is doubtful whether these HL objectives must be called targets in the PBN context? Single Time Constraint as an enabler for Trajectory Based Operations (TBO) is mentioned in option 2 (en route) and option 3 (TMA) and the latter is proposed to be

Here it is the right place to mention what the IR PBN can deliver as an enabler to reach these challenging targets. This paragraph on targets and the link with the PBN IR is very weak and is full of promises but does not mention real strong measures The proposed option is option 2. Then, it is rather misleading to mention improvements related to Option 3 to achieve the even more challenging targets.

Mention the (capacity, efficiency, safety, environmental) targets for the 2020+ timeframe and elaborate how the IR PBN contribute to achieve these targets in detail Arguments to reach targets in 2020+ must be dedicated to each and every Option and must be explained in detail

2.3.2.2 Noted PBN is one of the key enablers to improve the performance of the EATMN. The concrete link between the targets and the benefits of PBN can only be established once the rule is being drafted. The draft RAD does not intend to make promises; it gives an indication of the

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 102 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


implemented in a second phase of option 3 (2021-2025).

improvements that can be enabled by the rule. The text will be reviewed and revised in the context of the second edition of the European ATM Master Plan.


a. "Improvements in Noise and emissions....., requires the improvement of flight efficiency a. with more stringent track keeping performances b. with improved flight predictability through, in particular, reduced holding time. Ref. a. Is this really what people want, i.e. to live in so-called noise ghetto's? Ref. b. The text is only true when an airport is working with agreed average holding times, like at LHR, where 10 min average holding time is agreed with stakeholders. Other airports have not set targets for holding times. ATC at airports promulgate ATFM regulations thereby advising airlines to wait on the ground at the departure airport, with the ultimate aim to minimize holding delays at the (restricted) airport of arrival. However, holding delays occur even at such airports e.g. IST, MAD due to other reasons (e.g. airport slot allocation, etc.)

Ref. a. The issue has proven to be a major issue at some airports and has led to political discussions To reduce average holding time at only one airport, i.e. LHR, cannot be a valid argument to invest in the PBN IR functionality RNAV holding. It must be made clear what the IR PBN can deliver in TMAs and around airports in this respect.

Ref. a. It should be mentioned as a possible solution It must be made very clear with convincing arguments what and where this functionality means in terms of reducing holding time at airports. A clear analysis is needed representing the differences btw the actual situation at airports (not only LHR) and the new situation at these airports.

2.3.2.2 Noted a) The issue is not to concentrate noise in a particular location but to be more accurate in the knowledge of where the noise contours will be located. If the track keeping is more accurate then it will be possible to design routes which minimise the impacts of noise upon the population e.g. between population centres, and thus be more confident of the location of the noise footprint. b) The comment about the text is correct however, the point about the improvement in flight efficiency through improved predictability is

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 103 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


also correct. It may be prudent to delete the text part relating to reduced holding time. Alternatively a further bullet should be added detailing the benefits of RNAV holding i.e. reduced size, holds closer together, better track keeping.


"The forecast increase of traffic and the limitation on airport developments, meeting the future SES ATM performance targets, will be extremely challenging. Thus, to improve airport operations efficiency, new concepts of operations and technologies are required". The text suggests that IR PBN is the solution to meet the performance targets for TMA and airport operations and therefore new concepts of operations and technologies are required.

The text does not provide any evidence how new concepts of operation and technologies are able to achieve future SES ATM performances.

Clear cost benefit analyses are required to support the statements in par 3.1.1.3 in relation to TMA and airport operations

2.3.2.5 Accepted Experience in the USA and Australia has shown that significant benefits can be derived from the application of PBN capabilities in terminal areas. Ideally, results of studies at European airports should be used in the assessment of the PBN IR but, unfortunately, no such information is available at present.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 104 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



"In this context, two types of airspace changes are under development in Europe, i.e. closely spaced fixed route network and the free route concept." Free route airspace is already implemented in several airspaces and its implementation is increasing.

It is misleading to mention that this is under development in the context of the PBN IR.

The expected status of Free route airspace in Europe around 2018 should be provided taking into account the actual roll-out of FRA. It must be made clear what the impact of FRA is on the performance targets by that time. Separate from this the performance impact of the closely spaced routes (RNP1) must be made visible.


Belgium IATA/AEA

148. Chapter 3 + Annex C - par 3.1.1.4 + par 7.3

"Changes required to the existing equipment affect a large number of airborne systems and require new ground tools, to such an extent that a direct transition towards full 4D cannot be envisaged". "As a first step, the application of available Required Time of Arrival (RTA) capability is expected to provide some early benefits" What are these new ground tools that are needed to reach: ...." a direct transition towards full 4D for which as a first step RTA is expected to bring some early benefits" The conclusion can be made that without investments in ground tools in support of investments in new avionics, benefits are not going to take place. The text is suggesting that the ground site is the limiting factor to achieve benefits. At least a pre-mature cost benefit analysis for the various functionalities is necessary but missing Option 1 and Option 3 are not costed at all. Option 2 is but based on too many promises on benefits

Promises of (some) benefits are not very compelling and in fact are weakening the request for investments in avionics. RTA is a feature embedded in Option 3 whereas option 2 is being advised to stand for the PBN IR as the preferred option. Without knowing the ins/outs of each option it is difficult to select one of them. Difficult to make a balanced choice out of the three options

It must be made clear which ground tools are necessary to support investments in avionics.At the same time a clear cost benefits analysis must be presented for each of the 3 options including the effect of the combination of airborne and ground features. In this way it would be possible to make the right decision for selecting Option 1, 2 or 3.

2.3.2.5 Accepted A concept of operations and the technologies to support it have not yet been developed for RTA. Therefore, it was concluded that Option 3 is an objective for the future but not a practical proposition for the current PBN IR.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 105 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



"stringent standardized lateral performance such as RNP 0.3 would be required to enhance airport operations" The argument for RNP 0.3 to enhance airport operations with parallel runway operations is a promising one that needs to be clarified further The identified bottlenecks for the future growth in the ATM systems are strongly linked to TMA and available runway capacity.It is also recognized that whilst airlines demand growth at many of their critical airports in Europe, this must be delivered in a safe, consistent, efficient and environmental friendly way.

Due to the lack of future new airport infrastructure, i.e. runways, it certainly can be of utmost importance to be able to operate independently from closely spaced parallel runways (albeit taking into account wake vortex issues) Airport / TMA bottlenecks need to be radically improved for which the implementation of Advanced RNP functionalities and associated ATM tools and procedures are key

Provide evidence that RNP 0.3 is able to increase airport efficiency operating with parallel runways This to convince that investments in avionics also are beneficial for airport operations. In this respect work needs to start urgently to change ICAO SARPS that can be used by ATC in order to deliver benefits at airports and in the TMAs

2.3.2.2 Noted The matter will be further analysed during the drafting of the rule and the extended regulatory impact assessment.

Belgium IATA/AEA

150. Chapter 3 + Annex C - par 3.2

"PBN has a significant potential to make a major contribution towards meeting SES objectives and targets..." It is doubtful whether the PBN IR can have positive effects on all the objectives and performance targets.

Data provided are nice promises, but so far no hard data has been shown that are convincing at this moment in time to invest in airborne avionics.

Provide compelling arguments through a CBA that show PBN IR is the solution to contribute to meet SES objectives and targets.

2.3.2.5 Noted PBN is one of the key enablers to improve the performance of the EATMN. The draft RAD does not intend to make promises; it gives an indication of the improvements that can be enabled by the rule. It is agreed that evidence should be provided to back up assertions. The recently issued second edition of the European ATM Master Plan includes a business case. However, as the Master Plan indicates, none of

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 106 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


the anticipated SES benefits have been validated and thus there is, as yet, a shortage of 'hard data'. It is normal for the assessment of a new technology to be supported by tests and simulations and the PBN assessment has made best use of what information is available. The text will be reviewed and revised.

151. Chapter 3 + Annex C - par 3.2

"It is expected that a SES PBN IR through the civil/military coordination Essential Requirement would help maximise the number of State aircraft capable of demonstrating compliance with the PBN requirements". The actual mixed environment has slowed down the efficient use of the airspace, whilst waiting and expecting improvements that did not materialize on its own but needs some form of regulation

The PBN IR has the potential to minimize the need for exemptions and consequently reduce the risk of creating another level of mixed navigation mode operation.

Support that the PBN IR needs to be applicable for state and military aircraft. Also consider the role of the SPI IR in this context.

2.3.2.7 Noted It is intended that the IR be applicable to State aircraft.

Belgium IATA/AEA

152. Chapter 3 + Annex C - par 3.2.2

"Moreover, alignment of implementation timescales across different EC mandates is deemed essential in order to enable aircraft operators to minimise equipage costs". Alignment of the PRN IR needs to take place with the IR SPI (Surveillance) and COM and possibly others in terms of timing and contents. The argument to "minimize aircraft operator's equipage costs" is valid. It will also be essential to take into account the potential synergies between various CNS mandates when they will be implemented.

This is an essential statement, so as to avoid a mixed environment in which full benefits of each mandate cannot be accrued. The statement needs to be elaborated in detail to understand the impact and to make the right decisions in timing.

List the various EC mandates on CNS and provide an impact overview detailing synergies and equipage costs for airlines of synchronized implementation

2.3.2.5 Noted The recent Implementing Rules requiring aircraft retrofit have a notice period of about seven years before the final equipage deadline. This is intended to give the aircraft operators the flexibility within the implementation

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 107 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


period to manage equipage for the various rules in an efficient manner. The effective dates of the rules are all in the public domain, but a summary list can be provided. In operational terms, the various rules are independent and thus the benefits generated as a consequence of one rule are not dependent on the implementation of another.

153. Chapter 3 + Annex C - par 3.3. Conclusions

"Standardisation alone is not sufficient as it cannot ensure commitment to the coordinated and harmonised introduction of an agreed common set of airborne navigation capabilities, thus enabling synchronised improvements in the airspace structure, including the deployment of PBN routes and procedures" This is essential statement but it should not say "enabling synchronized improvements in the airspace".

This is a too passive statement Change into more active and positive statement, like "...the PBN IR addresses improvements in avionics and ground in a synchronized way.

2.3.2.2 Noted The text will be revised.

Belgium IATA/AEA

154. Chapter 4 - par 4.2 "This will address all the parties subject to the regulatory provisions, including the ANSPs as well as the aircraft operators."........ "Transitional arrangements will be defined as appropriate, taking into account the impact of the draft rule on legacy systems". It should be seriously investigated whether it makes sense that the groundside will be ready a few years (e.g. 2016) earlier than the retrofit date for aircraft (2021).

This will oblige ANSPs to be fully prepared and ready in 2018 with ground systems and procedures, whereby already equipped aircraft can make use and benefit from the new ATC environment 2 years in advance and whereby airlines are encouraged to retrofit aircraft earlier than 2021.

Clarify what is meant by transitional arrangements and where and why it is needed. Proposal: Airborne side retrofit before 2021. Groundside should start implementation in 2016 and be ready in 2018.

2.3.2.2 Noted From a legal point of view, transitional arrangements are possible under EU law. As a matter of example and in the specific context of SES, various Implementing Rules contain transitional

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 108 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


arrangements (e.g. Commission Regulation No 1032/2006 (COTR) as amended, Commission Regulation No 633/2007 (FMTP) as amended, Commission Regulation No 73/2010 (ADQ), etc.). With regard to the proposal: airborne retrofit date currently proposed is end of 2020, i.e. before 2021; the ground side is foreseen to implement APVs between now and the end of 2020 with a number of procedures already in place by 2018. Although the ground side can complete a number of activities in parallel to the aircraft retrofit, and be ''ready'' operations based on A-RNP can only commence once a certain number of aircraft are equipped and operators approved.


- 109 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


155. Chapter 4 - par 4.2 "However, the scope of application can be fine- tuned in each IR, which can take into account the fact that there are particular areas or types of traffic for which the equipage would not be justifiable (e.g. low levels of traffic or certain areas in which deployment of certain navigation applications is not required or economically justified)". One could possibly think of Scandinavia as less demanding airspace? But this is not clear what is meant and needs further clarification.

Aircraft need to be equipped anyway irrespective if they fly from low demand airspace areas to high demand areas. The item is a ground issue, but needs clarification.

Clarify which areas of airspace are envisaged in this context

2.3.2.3 Accepted The matter will be further analysed during the drafting of the rule and the extended regulatory impact assessment.

Belgium IATA/AEA

156. Chapter 4 - par 4.2 "The draft IR may apply to more limited areas of airspace in the case of a phased deployment" What is meant with limited areas of airspace?

Need for clarification. Does the draft IR exclude certain TMAs?

Provide explanation on the meaning of "may apply to more limited areas of airspace in the case of a phased deployment. Please indicate which areas of airspace are envisaged in this context.

2.3.2.3 Accepted The statement reflects the principle of targeting of the requirements. Although the rule will be effective in all states where EU law is applicable, some requirements can be limited in their applicability. The matter will be further analysed during the drafting of the rule and the extended regulatory impact assessment.

Belgium IATA/AEA

157. Chapter 4 - par 4.2 + par 5.2.4

Par 4.2 For all options, two levels of continuity are considered when assessing the impact of each option against various navigation infrastructure assumptions: In the context of this document, these two levels of operational continuity are not relevant to the choice of regulatory option. Par 5.2.4 Equip and obtain appropriate approval for GNSS carriage"

Not clear Please explain Explain which continuity requirements, i.e. whether dual RNAV and/or dual frequency GNSS are required and which arguments are valid also in the light of the SPI IR.

2.3.2.2 Noted The matter will be further specified during the drafting of the rule and the extended regulatory impact assessment.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 110 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


Which GPS standard (e.g. accuracy, integrity, latency) is required? TSO 129, TSO 145 (FAA requirement),TSO 196, or ? Required approval/certification definition? - Multi constellation required? What system functionality to process GPS for which applications? - Single or dual system required?

158. Chapter 4 - par 4.3 "...Requirements related to airworthiness certification and approval of operators (EASA rules, including e.g. FCL, authorisation to third country operators, safety assessment of changes to ATM/ANS functional systems, etc.). "...Specific performance requirements applicable to the sub-systems' components of the navigation systems (e.g. area navigation system sensors European Technical Standard Order - ETSO Authorizations ... How are these requirements influencing the performance outcome of the airline investments when they are not timely in place and/or when they are not aligned?

Describe these risks and mitigation measures.

2.3.2.4 Accepted Through the development of the required EASA rules and standards in accordance with the rulemaking programme and the appropriate co-ordination during the comitology process the timely availability of the appropriate certification and operational standards should be ensured.

Belgium IATA/AEA

159. Chapter 4 - para 4.2 + par 7.2

"As it is not intended to introduce changes to the ground or space-based navigation infrastructure, it is likely that no specific constituents of the ground or space-based systems will be identified in the draft rule". The airline associations are of the opinion that on the contrary there will be a need for introducing changes to ground systems, e.g. there is a need to include AMAN as a tool for ATC to deal with the increased traffic volumes in busy TMAs as well as there is a need to work with fully synchronized Surveillance and communication tools.

The statement: "it is not intended to introduce changes to the ground or space based system" is misleading and cannot be taken seriously to our opinion. The ground side must be able to work with the investments made in the cockpit for which there is a need to include new and or upgraded ground systems, otherwise airlines do not see any benefits.

The statement must be made that requirements for both the ground / space based infrastructure and airborne side must be identified in the draft rule.

2.3.2.2 Accepted The IR needs to be amended to be clear on what infrastructures are required to support it, and further identify which developments should be encouraged in order to take full advantage of the benefit potential of the PBN IR. Required infrastructures are

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 111 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


GNSS and terrestrial navigation services (which are anticipated to undergo continual evolutions to optimize PBN support). Additional CNS/ATM infrastructure developments should be identified during the further work of the PBN IR.

160. Chapter 5 - Option 1 - Par 5.2.1

"....the fixed route network changes will be limited to straight segments, due to the exclusion of Fixed Radius Transition (FRT)". .

N/A N/A N/A Belgium IATA/AEA


"For TMA operations an area navigation system ....... will be required"....i.e. "suitable displays are needed for situational awareness when flying turns (RF)" It is assumed that these display systems are needed for ATC purposes, which suggests that changes are needed in ATC systems (and probably this will not be the one and only need for change on the ground side)

It has been stated previously that changes in ATC systems are not needed, which seems not to be the case.

It is requested to provide a full overview of ATC systems, tools and procedures that are needed in support of Option 1 (and 2 and 3) and a full explanation whether and how these systems will change the ATC environment for ATCOs.

Noted 'Suitable displays'' refers to the onboard RNAV system, not the ATC displays. The issue of changes to ATC systems, tools and procedures, in support of PBN operations, will be addressed during the drafting of the rule and the extended regulatory impact assessment.

Belgium IATA/AEA


.."ATS fixed route network could be modified in order to reduce the spacing to the minimum achievable distance" The term "could" is too passive

Introducing Advanced RNP must automatically lead to a reduction in spacing between parallel routes. In the light of the SPI IR the 7 NM spacing is challenged and it is believed that en-route spacing can

Change the word "could" into "must" and specify the spacing. An analyses is required to assess the route spacing to minimum


The RAD does not define the obligations therefore it indicates what would be possible.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 112 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


be further improved to e.g. 5 NM. available distance in the light of the SPI IR.

Once this is agreed, then the required actions will be expressed in terms of legal obligations.


"Advanced RNP (1 NM TSE) capability and with full flexibility in terms of TMA operations by 2020" Not sure what "full flexibility in terms of TMA means"

Request for explanation of text Explain the meaning of "full flexibility in terms of TMA"

2.3.2.2 Ability of ANSPs to respond to a variety of operational requirements, while improving flight efficiency, capacity, cost-effectiveness of service provision.

Belgium IATA/AEA


..... "Option 2 requires by 2020 a capability of the aircraft to meet a single ATC time constraint in en-route airspace". It is not made clear what ATC is going to do with this Single Time Constraint (STC)?

If the feature is not used by ATC it will be worthless to invest. The feature must be used in a meaningful way, i.e. benefit driven

Explain the added value of the STC investment and ensure that the use of STC will be guaranteed and is enforced through the text of the IR


This en-route application is mainly to improve predictability, the lack of which currently leads to inaccurate ATFM measures and sector overdeliveries that in turn are translated into capacity buffers, which increase the amount of ATFM measures (CTOT, re-routes) required. As such improved predictability is expected to have direct benefit to performance. Using target times will require operational participation of both ATC and

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 113 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


AO/pilot.


"requires standardized airborne capability to enable in particular predictable transitions to the offset path". "This will ease parallel offset use by controllers and will result in reduced radar vectoring and increase of capacity for same and opposite direction traffic" This is a most likely a training issue for ATC. However, experience reveals that if ATCOs are not current in the application of e.g. TPO, the feature will not be used by ATC in case it is necessary.

The use of the new airborne equipment is dependent on ATCs trust in and readiness for usage and must be part of the ATCO standard skills otherwise the investment is at risk not being used by ATC

The mentioning of ATC skills in support of Option 2 must be explicitly taken up in the IR text.

2.3.2.2 Accepted ATCO training is foreseen as required for PBN implementation.

Belgium IATA/AEA


"ATS will be able to provide better tactical control of the traffic flows and thus contribute to the reduction of flight delays. "This could be achieved through the use of the Time of Arrival Constraint functionality, as the basis for managing constraints as close as possible to congested areas rather than using take-off slots. Depending on the accuracies achieved, the necessary procedures and the tools will be developed and deployed". These accuracies of the TOAC concept must be well defined and taken up in the Regulation. The regulatory document for the PBN IR does not define the minimum requirements the various functionalities are based on, e.g. a RTA (required time of arrival) requirement needs to include precise definition

It must be avoided that ANSPs will be provided with the choice to implement or not to implement or to implement later

Define the accuracies of TOAC In the text of the IR. Also the necessary procedures and tools need to be clearly defined in the text of the IR to ensure that ANSPs are mandated implement them.

2.3.2.2 Accepted Details to be worked out. RTCA DO-236C / EUROCAE ED-75C will come out in 2013 and will specify 30s TOAC in cruise and 10s in TMA. The need for TOAC and whether or not it would be needed as requirement in the IR in the cruise and/or TMA environment is subject to further analysis.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 114 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



“....requires all navigation functionalities that have been identified as sufficiently mature for implementation by 2020. What are the arguments to understand that navigation functionalities are deemed to be sufficiently mature for implementation by 2020? The required airborne functionalities are already available today (2012) on at least 30 % of the main line aircraft

Is there any difference in arguments when the date would be set at 2018?What is mature in 2020 should normally speaking be mature in 2018 as well. ANSPs must be encouraged to embrace these aircraft capabilities in a timely manner without delay through the implementation of matching ATC procedures supported by appropriate ATC tools whereby the Best Equipped Best Served concept will be applied

Explain the arguments that have been used to select 2020 as the date that nav functionalities are sufficiently mature. Explain why 2018 is not a good date in this respect (maturity of nav functionalities). Implement matching ATC procedures and tools without delay (2012 and onwards). The mentioned timing of 2020 is unacceptable in this respect.

2.3.2.3 Noted Mature means functionality defined in a standard, available in current products and concept of operations and benefits well understood. Mature also implies aircraft certification and ops approval material available and implemented. Some procedures, e.g. APVs, are already being implemented by ANSPs. The 2020 date is the final date when all approach procedures have to be implemented.

Belgium IATA/AEA

168. Chapter 5 - Option 3 -Par 5.2.3

"For terminal airspace operations, a capability of the aircraft to meet a single ATC time constraint for arrival is required". "This will enable the development of Initial 4D navigation operations by 2025." "Option 3 is therefore seen as an enabler of the SESAR trajectory based concept of operation" It is not made clear how ATC is going to make use of the Single Time Constraint (STC) in the Terminal airspace? The capability of the STC is already required for the en route airspace in Option 2, but it is expected that for the terminal airspace more stringent requirements for this functionality are needed? The question is raised what are the issues to enable Initial 4D navigation by 2025 and what prevent them to implement i4D earlier?

It must be made clear how this functionality will be used by ATC in a meaningful way and clear benefits must be shown. What are the arguments to expect initial 4D navigation in the Terminal airspace by 2025?

Explain the added value of the STC investment in the Terminal Airspace; Explain which requirements are needed for ATC to make full use of the functionality; Provide information in which TMAs it will be used and which benefits will be expected when fully used by ATC. The use of STC in the Terminal airspace must be guaranteed, and

2.3.2.2 Noted RTA is not a requirement for option 1. EUROCONTROL is conducting a study looking into feasibility of CTA linked to AMAN in the arrival phase of flight. RTCA DO-236C / EUROCAE ED-75C will require 30s RTA in cruise and 10s RTA in the TMA.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 115 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


Envisaged functionalities shall be introduced in a synchronized manner, i.e. the introduction of ground & airborne part of the various functionalities shall be transparent and harmonized. E.g. RTA is required as part of advanced RNP 1 from the operator within option 1 (see § 5.2.3.), while ANSPs requirement for the same is only with option 3 (see § 5.2.4.).

which needs to be made clear in the text of the PBN IR. Explain why Initial 4D in terminal airspace cannot be guaranteed before 2025?

169. Chapter 5 - Par 5.2.4

"Deploy all required elements to support Trajectory Based Operation Concept" (terminal airspace). This statement is rather vague and it needs to be explained in detail what these elements mean and what exact actions are need by ATC.

Support from AO side is only possible when this information is available.

And explain in detail which ATC elements are required to support TBO

2.3.2.2 Noted These elements are still under development within SESAR.

Belgium IATA/AEA

170. Chapter 5 - Par 5.2.4

"Equip and obtain appropriate approval for FRT" above FL195 Required approval/certification definition? Do not understand, FRT is part of Advanced RNP 1.0 (e.g. see ICAO PBN manual Doc 9613)

2.3.2.2 Noted It is an optional function in Advanced RNP. RTCA DO-236C / EUROCAE ED-75C will have updated spec for FRT.

Belgium IATA/AEA

171. Chapter 5 - Par 5.2.4

"Equip and obtain appropriate approval for: Advanced RNP 1.0 for all options No specification definition is found in Eurocontrol document for Advanced RNP 1.0, e.g. what is the required precision for RTA (needed to know to understand if today’s aircraft fulfil this requirement or need to be exchanged)

2.3.2.2 Accepted RTCA DO-236C / EUROCAE ED-75C will require 30s RTA in cruise and 10s RTA in the TMA.

Belgium IATA/AEA

172. Chapter 5 - Par 5.2.4

"Equip and obtain appropriate approval for: Advanced RNP 1.0 "Equip and obtain appropriate approval for FRT" "Terminal airspace: Advanced RNP 1.0, RF, VNAV, RNAV Holding" "Final approach: LNAV (RNP 0.3) capability and either Baro VNAV capability or SBAS capability Is this correct? The addition of the number "1" to Advanced RNP appears new?

EASA AMC 20-xx on Advanced RNP is not available yet (not in existence).Our understanding is that Airworthiness and Operational Approval for Advanced RNP will be an approval for all parts of the A-RNP in one go. It is not mentioned what is required by AO. It is not mentioned what is required by AO

Explain the use of A-RNP1 Explain better what is required from AO Explain what is required from AO

2.3.2.2 Accepted See the PBN manual for an accurate definition of Advanced RNP.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 116 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


It is understood that Advanced RNP is already incorporating RNP1, FRT, RF etc) Therefore it would be enough to only refer to Advanced RNP specification What is required for aircraft operators here? Equip or approve? What is required by aircraft operators? Equip or approve? The definition of the Eurocontrol's Regulatory Approach Document functionalities seems not to match with international standards like the ICAO PBN manual doc. 9613. For example "advanced RNP 1" is defined as "Basic RNP 1 plus FRT, RT and RTA" in the ICAO document. The Eurocontrol document proposes advanced RNP 1, FRT, RT and RTA at different stages in different options, that is not understandable nor compliant with existing ICAO definitions.

173. Chapter 5 - Par 5.2.4

"Equip and obtain appropriate approval for a capability to meet a single time constraint (terminal airspace) Is the regulatory material available already?

It will be rather difficult to AO to commit to this functionality if the regulatory material is not available and it is like signing a blanket cheque

Provide detailed information on regulatory material needed for AO

2.3.2.2 Accepted RTCA DO-236C / EUROCAE ED-75C will require 30s RTA in cruise and 10s RTA in the TMA. The regulatory material for PBN approvals will be developed by EASA.

Belgium IATA/AEA

174. Chapter 5 - Par 5.2.4

"Final Approach" Why is TMA not mentioned here? It looks like the TMA has been forgotten to be mentioned?

RNP1 must have been mentioned to be implemented by ANSPs.

Review the paragraph and include TMA / RNP1

2.3.2.2 Accepted It will be added. Belgium IATA/AEA

175. Chapter 5 - Par 5.2.4

LNAV (RNP 0.3) capability and either Baro VNAV capability or SBAS capability all options Assumes LNAV today’s TSO 129 GPS? Commercial Air Traffic (CAT) is unlikely to need SBAS

Please explain The approaches need all to have RNP APCH Baro VNAV capability too

2.3.2.2 Rejected Baro/VNAV may not be needed at GA airports where nobody has it.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 117 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


176. Chapter 5 - Par 5.2.4

Equip and obtain appropriate approval for Tactical Parallel Offset for Option 2 and 3 What kind of better functionality is required for which applications?

Since decades aircraft can fly and do fly parallel offset (with the same precision as the standard track),

Explain what is new on TPO in this context?

2.3.2.2 Noted TPO is not implemented in a uniform way in different aircraft. Some aircraft cancel the TPO at the next waypoint, others at beginning of STAR, and others at beginning of approach. Intercept / rejoin angles are not uniform etc.

Belgium IATA/AEA

177. Chapter 5 - Par 5.2.4

"Equip and obtain appropriate approval for a capability to meet a single time constraint for option 2 and 3" Do not understand, RTA is part of Advanced RNP 1.0 (e.g. see ICAO PBN manual Doc 9613) Required precision unclear??

Plse explain 2.3.2.2 Noted RTA is being defined in RTCA DO-236C / EUROCAE ED-75C and will require 30s RTA in cruise and 10s RTA in the TMA.

Belgium IATA/AEA

178. Chapter 5 - Par 5.2.4

"Advanced RNP 1.0, RF, VNAV (i.e. Vertical constraints but no coupled guidance), RNAV Holding for all options VNAV is defined as being coupled vertical guidance, so what does the requirement "...but no coupled guidance" mean? Do not understand additional RF requirement, as it is part of Advanced RNP 1.0 (e.g. see ICAO PBN manual Doc 9613)

Plse explain 2.3.2.2 Noted RF is indeed part of Advanced RNP. The term VNAV for arrivals is misleading. What is meant is actually altitude constraints

Belgium IATA/AEA

179. Chapter 6 - Par 6.2.1

"First phase and second phase" The phases are not clear and are not defined.

What are the timings of the first and second phase?

Phases should be identified by years and it must be explained by "which date" should be "what implemented"

N/A Noted The phases are specified in Para 5.2.4: Phase I: 2014 - 2020 and Phase II: 2021 - 2025.

Belgium IATA/AEA

180. Chapter 6 - Par 6.2.6

"The costs and benefits associated with the regulatory options are determined through the preliminary economic impact assessment". "a financial incentive scheme could be implemented to encourage earlier equipage

Early benefits for airlines can only occur when the ground side is ahead of the retrofit date! and the BEBS concept will be applied

Ensure that the PBN IR contains a text that ANSPs are obliged to be ready so as to gain benefit from early aircraft equipage

2.3.2.3 Noted Applicability dates will be subject to further consideration during the drafting of the rule and the

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 118 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


and to ensure that airborne and ground-based PBN investments are synchronized" See Appendix E : preliminary economic impact assessment Need specific comments Agree, but this should also mean that the ATC ground side will be obliged to have the required airspace, supporting procedures and tools etc. in place earlier than the forward fit / retrofit date.

extended regulatory impact assessment.

181. Chapter 6 - Par 6.2.8

"Applicable dates for the deployment of PBN applications by ANSPs, which are linked with the proposed mandate dates for airborne equipage". This should not only be related to PBN applications

This must be expanded with other relevant ground requirements, i.e. ATC procedures and tools like AMAN, that need to be available to support the investments in avionics

The applicable dates for PBN applications deployments needs also take into account the on time availability of relevant ATC tools in support of required airborne equipage.

2.3.2.3 Accepted The text will be revised.

Belgium IATA/AEA

182. Chapter 6 - Par 6.3.5

"The expected benefits of PBN will only be maximized if its application is implemented across the totality of the EATMN airspace". "Therefore, the draft IR will mandate a deadline for the deployment of PBN applications by ANSPs in the EATMN". This is an important statement. It has been argued above in our comments that the deployment date for ANSPs should be two (2) years earlier than the aircraft forward fit / retrofit date with the argument that ANSPs can gain experience with aircraft that are already equipped. There are more arguments why ANSPs should be ready in advance, e.g. training of procedures, additional ATC tools, airspace changes etc.

There are sound arguments for ANSPs to be ready in advance Preparedness by ANSPs is necessary well before the aircraft forward fit / retrofit date so that airlines that are already equipped can reap early benefits, applying the BEBS concept. It will also be a driver for AO to equip earlier.

A requirement for ANSPs to be prepared and ready in advance must be taken up in the IR text.


Belgium IATA/AEA


- 119 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


183. Chapter 6 - Par 6.4 "The draft IR could specify applicability criteria for airborne equipage; for example": It should also be made clear, by means of criteria, how ATC is defining a mixed environment.

In the PRNAV discussions ATC provided a requirement of more than 90 % coverage. Applying this criteria for PBN IR it would mean that less than 10 % of the aircraft flying in a particular airspace under control of an ATCO is allowed not to be compliant with the IR PBN. This ATC policy must be avoided as it will hamper the use of the BEBS concept

What is deemed to be an acceptable criteria for ATC, ie. 70, 80 or 90 % coverage?

2.3.2.3 Noted It is assumed that it is 90%.

Belgium IATA/AEA

184. Chapter 6 - par 6.2.3

"Specific problems faced by the military include the high number of aircraft, multiple types and variants, limited defence budgets" Limited defence budgets appears to be a weird argument.

It suggests that Commercial (CAT) operators have sufficient budgets and will have no problem to find the money for PBN investments. Obviously this is not the case

Delete limited defence budgets or Use the phrase in the context of CAT as well for consistency reasons.

2.3.2.52.3.2.7

Accepted It was not intended to imply that commercial operators do not have limited budgets. It only mentions specific problems impacting the MoDs. Saying the military face budget constraints does not imply that CAT does not have them. Sentence is factually correct as military procurement laws are to be approved by national parliaments suffering severe cuts that do not allow investing too much on requirements that are not directly linked to the primary military mission.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 120 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


185. Chapter 7 - Par 7.4 "Therefore the non-EU aircraft will have to comply with the interoperability and performance requirements of the draft IR, without having to show an EC declaration of conformity for the airborne equipment". "They will be authorised by EASA to enter the EU airspace on the basis of Article 9 of Regulation 216/2008[7]" Important knowledge for TCO.

N/A Noted None. Belgium IATA/AEA

186. Chapter 8 - Par 8.2 "...the development of the mandate is being closely coordinated with EASA" " This will ensure that the necessary EASA safety and interoperability measures may be implemented in timely manner thus facilitating the successful deployment of PBN in Europe". This is an important statement but it is necessary to agree on an availability date.

Industry, States, ANSPs and Airlines all need to be prepared and be ready on time in a synchronized and mutually agreed manner.

The PBN IR need clear agreements on dates indicating dates for readiness by every stakeholder, e.g. EASA

2.3.2.3 Noted Through the development of the required EASA rules and standards in accordance with the rulemaking programme and the appropriate co-ordination during the comitology process the timely availability of the appropriate certification and operational standards should be ensured.

Belgium IATA/AEA

187. Chapter 9 - Par 9.3 "Option 2 is seen to be the most suitable to put forward for implementation ANSPs must be ready earlier in terms of installation and the proper use of ATC tools and systems which need to be adapted to the new situation. ANSPs are required to take the lead in this change environment. Forward fit aircraft will be compliant with the IR even before the IR becomes effective. This means that ANSPs, when ready earlier, can built-up experience with these tools and systems.

It is believed that AOs will only start to make investments in avionics if benefits can be guaranteed from the beginning. Airlines investments will be dependent on the sound and safe working of the system/procedures.

It is recommended that the ANSPs will be obliged to be ready at a specific predetermined time. ATC Tools and systems in Option 2 need to be mature and need to show proven benefits


Belgium IATA/AEA

188. Chapter 9 - Par 9.3 "It is the most demanding option to be implemented, as it includes additional, more advanced functionalities and potentially automation.

It is doubtful that the STC applicable for the TMA in Option 3 can be materialized on the ground in support of investments in avionics

It is not clear whether Option 3 is an option to pursue even in the timeframe proposed,

2.3.2.2 Noted Option 3 is not recommended for a basis for the development of

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 121 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


It should be emphasized that the only difference with Option 2 is the addition of the single time constraint to be applicable in the TMA, however the time frame is called phase 2, ie. 2021-2025. Although more than 10 years from now (2012), it seems to us that the ground side will never be on time to realize this feature in an harmonized way in their organizations and the ATC environments

i.e.2021 until 2025. the rule. Applicability dates have been analysed on the basis of the timescales foreseen in the European ATM Master Plan and the recommendations from the ICB.

189. Chapter 9 - Par 9.3 Issue: "The concept of operation for using a capability to meet a time constraint en-route is not fully specified and would require a substantial safety assessment" The STC feature in option 2 might therefore not be valid and is misleading in the sense that it probably takes more time until its usage brings the promised benefits. There is no mentioning of any SESAR essential changes and nothing is said about deployment results in this domain

Indeed an issue for which the investments in avionics cannot be paid back on time, if this option will be chosen.

So, why investing in this feature? Therefore it could be an idea to delete this feature from Option 2?

2.3.2.2 Accepted It should be investigated during the extended RIA whether or not it is beneficial to require an airborne function to comply with an enroute time constraint in option 2. To be investigated if TOAC can be accomplished with ETA indication and manual crew action.

Belgium IATA/AEA

190. Chapter 9 - Par 9.3 Issue: "The implementation of TPO and a single time constraint would require the adaptation of ATCO supporting tools and the related procedures in order to ensure safe operation". Indeed TPO and STC are major risks as it is a (game) change in ATC. Have these features been implemented elsewhere? With other words are these mature deliverables from SESAR ready for widespread deployment already?

Wide spread Introduction of TPO and STC within ATC organizations could create problems, through which the AO are not able to gain benefits in a timely manner. If these features are not mature for deployment then it is not leading to any benefit

Determine whether TPO and STC are mature for deployment.If mature, measures must be taken to mitigate the issue.

2.3.2.2 Accepted This will be part of the extended RIA.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 122 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


191. Chapter 9 - Par 9.3 Issue: "Higher level of effort to implement, as it adds on more functionality to those in Option 1." To mitigate this issue/risk it is needed that ANSPs have to start implementation earlier i.e. before the aircraft retrofit date.

Experiences have shown that implementation at the side of the ANSPs takes more time than expected due to confidence building with new systems, training etc.

Take measures to mitigate the risk through obliging ANSPs to implement earlier than the aircraft retrofit date


Belgium IATA/AEA

192. Chapter 9 - Par 9.4 "The 20 year age exemption would lead to approximately 82% of flights being equipped in 2021, with this value rising to 90% over the following five years" The proposed exemption age of 20 year is likely not an economical viable position. The average aircraft replacement age according to the RAD is 25 years.

It will be more interesting for airlines if the airline investments can be used in 10-8 years rather than 5 years as proposed in the RAD.

Aircraft age 17-15 years instead of 20 years to be able use investments for 8 -10 years instead of 5 years. The BEBS concept would enable airspace users to decide on the need and time of retrofit, based on their own business case.

2.3.2.5 Noted There is a balance to be obtained between the requirements of the ANSPs and those of the aircraft operators. It is recognised that the aircraft operators will wish to obtain the maximum use from their investment in PBN avionics. However, reducing the aircraft age as suggested would reduce the proportion of flights by equipped aircraft making the mixed fleet more difficult to manage for the ANSPs, who have expressed concern about the 20 year exemption age. It is anticipated that, as a consequence of the consultation exercise, the ANSPs will present

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 123 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


information on the consequences and costs of handling aircraft with mixed navigation capabilities and allow an acceptable trade off to be made between these and the costs of the aircraft operators.

193. Chapter 9 - Par 9.4 "Real time simulations have been carried out which have demonstrated the feasibility of the new navigation capabilities and have indicated that they will allow controllers to safely handle a traffic increase of up to 20% in en-route airspace having a fixed ATS route network. This increase in productivity will enable the increase in the numbers of controllers required to handle the increasing levels of traffic anticipated to be lower than would otherwise be necessary and, as a consequence, ANSP operating costs will be lower than would be the case without the required capabilities" Are these efficiency improvement promises or proven in real time? A large part of the business case for option 2 is based on increase ATC controller productivity (+20%).

Guarantees are needed that those benefits will not disappear through future compensation deals with ATCO trade unions

2.3.2.5 Noted Controller productivity benefits produced by PBN would reduce the rate of increase in the numbers of controllers, but would not reduce the absolute number of controllers. Thus there would be no redundancies or redundancy payments and no cash saving for potential compensation deals.

Belgium IATA/AEA

194. Chapter 9 - Par 9.4 It appears difficult due to lack of study data to make a proper selection of the three Options A serious judgement of the Eurocontrol Regulatory Approach document functionalities cannot be considered possible due to the above mentioned significant lack of information provided

This is rather disappointing after so many years of preparation on the IR PBN

N/A Noted The preliminary impact assessment has used all available data and information, which could be considered as reliable.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 124 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


195. Chapter 9 - Par 9.4 "Other studies on the effect of APV on lower minima suggest that savings with APV of euro 401m could be achieved between 2021 and 2030 due to reduced delays and disruption. This is probably double counting. These are estimated savings and no real out of pocket money and therefore not really saved money.Figures are based on info from the USA. It is well known that approach procedures in Europe with ILS during adverse weather are well mature. Improvements are hardly not expected with introduction of APV to lower minima Benefits in TMAs might be lower than expected due to local environmental & political constraints

The estimated savings of 401 m Euro are doubtful

Such savings / benefits should NOT be presented in a generic way but should be presented as part of specific local circumstances at airports/TMAs of interest If not possible, these savings should not be part of the CBA

2.3.2.5 Rejected These savings were derived from case studies carried out for 16 medium sized airports in Europe. The results of the 16 case studies were extrapolated to airports with similar capabilities. Although results could always be made more reliable with the addition of additional case studies, it would not be practical to study a very large number of airports and these studies were considered to provide a reasonable level of guidance.

Belgium IATA/AEA

196. Chapter 9 - Par 9.6 ICAO Doc 7030[44], Regional supplementary Procedures, may need to be updated as a result of the requirements set out in the draft IR This is an important observation and an identified risk for proper and timely implementation

This must have high attention and must be made clear which changes are needed in these documents for use by ATC and AO.

Determine the impact of the IR PBN on the existing rule and standards.

N/A Accepted The impact on existing rules and standards will be part of the extended regulatory impact assessment during the drafting of the implementing rule.

Belgium IATA/AEA

197. Chapter 9 - Par 9.7 "Option 2 is seen as the option that would provide the highest potential for achieving benefits. Therefore, it is considered as the most appropriate to be taken forward as a basis for the development of the provisions of the draft IR".. A hybrid option is being proposed by AOs and their Associations for which a CBA must be made to assess its value

For various reasons, i.e. requested emphasis on Airport / TMA; inclusion of a clear mandate for ANSPs with respect to ATC readiness by 2018 (starting in 2016) including ATC systems/tools and procedures; deletion of FRT; introduction of BEBS concept; decrease of aircraft exemption to 15-17 year.

Provide a meaningful CBA as indicated in the hybrid option (see summary of comments)


It is accepted to put emphasis on TMA operations, to clearly define obligations on ANSPs and to consider FRT not part of the mandated

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 125 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


functionalities. However, a uniform implementation of BEBS concept is not defined at this stage and the 15-17 years exemption would have a severe impact on the proportion of equipped flights.

198. Condor Flugdienst GmbH: Annex 2.6.3 EASA Airworthiness

See comment 115. EASA is requested to provide airworthiness regulatory material for all PBN specifications.

See reasons mentioned at115. 2.3.2.4 Noted None. Germany DFS/Condor Flugdienst GmbH

199. Condor Flugdienst GmbH: Annex A 2.2.4

All PBN specifications shall be addressed, including RNP 4 and RNAV 2

Operators are operating globally. To operate on specific navigation specifications requires PBN certifications from state of registry. E.g.: MNPS half degree separation operations from 2013 onwards require RNP 4 as navigation specification. Operators require approval to operate on RNP 4 in order to operate in MNPS. Numerous airports require for SID/STAR navigational specifications RNAV 1 or RNAV 2.In order being able to operate on those procedures an operator required approval from state of registry. Approval can only be granted if there is a clear guideline.

2.3.2.1 Noted The idea is that there would be one Advanced RNP approval covering all phases of flight in European airspace.

Germany DFS/Condor Flugdienst GmbH


- 126 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


200. Condor Flugdienst GmbH: Annex A 2.2.4 G RNP APCH

Description of RNPAPCH specification is not clear

The RNPAPCH is a NPA even when using the APV part. APV can be understood as add-on to the NPA providing vertical guidance, but the procedure itself is classified as NPA. Furthermore GNSS is just one possible sensor. It is still a RNP application.

This specification covers non-precision approaches based on area navigation. The RNPAPCH is designated as RNAV (XXX), where the term XXX describes the required sensor for position updating. The required navigational performance (RNP) is 0.3 NM. Several subtypes of RNPAPCHs are available and identified via the minima section on the instrument approach chart. LNAV - non-precision approach - lateral navigation (LNAV) or localiser performance (LP) minima line; Minimum classified as MDA/MDH LNAV/VNAV - APVBaroVNAV (approach procedure with vertical guidance based on onboard barometric equipment); Minimum classified as DA/DH LPV - APVSBAS (approach procedure with vertical guidance based on satellite augmentation system); Minimum classified as DA/DH


GNSS is the only sensor available to support RNP APCH. APVs are not NPA or PA. They are something in-between. The text will be improved.



- 127 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


201. Condor Flugdienst GmbH: Annex A 2.2.4 H RNP APCH

Description of RNPAPCH specification is not clear, Specification needs to be included in the PBN IR

Beside the special authorisation by the owner of the RNPAR Approach operators require a general approval by state of registry to conduct RNPAR Approach operations

This specification covers non-precision approaches based on area navigation with tighter accuracy requirements than the RNPAPCH.The RNPARAPCH is designated as RNAV (RNP). The required navigational performance (RNP) is 0.3 NM or lower. The RNP ARAPCH is facilitated with vertical guidance by APV BaroVNAV and may contain RF legs in final approach. This specification requires a special authorisation by authority publishing the procedure and by state of registry for general operational criteria.

2.3.2.2 Accepted The proposed text will be added.


202. Condor Flugdienst GmbH: Annex B B.4

Subjects outside the scope of the draft implementing rule specifically excludes requirements for operator approvals.

Even if the PBN IR is not originally designed to support operator approval criteria, the PBNIR should be designed to support harmonisation of design and implementing criteria with operators approval criteria.

2.3.2.1 Noted It is envisaged that the PBN IR will only detail the “what, where and when” requirements associated the PBN requirement to use with Europe. Inclusion of additional operator approval criteria has the potential to introduce confusion and require a dual certification/approv



- 128 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


al processes. Therefore the certification and approval processes will be contained within the EASA regulatory framework.

203. DFS: 2 Current Institutional and Operational Environment & Appendix A

Chapter 2 and Appendix A fail to mention the European Standards Organisations (ESOs). The draft EC Mandate to the ESOs and its connection to the PBN Regulatory Approach Draft should be clarified.

The draft EC Standardisation Mandate to CEN/CENELEC/ETSI in support of the European ATM Master Plan contains, inter alia, a reference to a standardisation activity based on EUROCAE WG 85 and document ED75 "i4D + Controlled Time of Arrival (Step 1): Performance based navigation for enhanced Controlled Time of Arrival" with an estimated publication date of 2014.

The connection of the PBN RAD to ongoing activities in conjunction with standardisation through the ESOs in support of the ATM Master Plan needs to be clarified. ESO standardisation activities in support of PBN implementation should be fostered.

2.3.2.1 Noted Standardisation activities related to PBN will be taken into account during the analysis of the Means of Compliance needs in support of the IR to take place during the drafting of the rule.

Germany DFS

204. DFS: 4.2 Subjects covered by regulatory provisions, second bullet

The outlined scenario does not mention the harmonisation with already existing free flights implementations, e.g. FAAAC 90-99 High Altitude Airspace Redesign. Further, it also does not mention harmonisation activities in conjunction with the FAA's BEBS (Best Equipped Best Served) initiative. Procedure and airspace design should be harmonised to the extent possible.

Both activities are not mentioned and congruence should be ensured.

Outline how the alignment with other such activities on a global level will be facilitated to ensure a truly seamless environment.

2.3.2.1 Accepted Global harmonisation and interoperability is pursued through ICAO. PBN Specifications are recognised globally as the basis for implementation.

Germany DFS

205. DFS: 4.2 Subjects covered by regulatory provisions, second bullet

The text should emphasize the global coordination on PBN implementation. it should be pointed out that global coordination will ensure that there will be no carriage requirement for Europe-specific onboard equipment.

The paragraph mentions harmonised deployment, but his could be construed as in Europe only.


As the applicability of EU law is within Europe, the harmonisation objective is applicable to the EATMN, however, global interoperability and harmonisation to the extent possible

Germany DFS


- 129 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


is recognised as key for cost-effective implementation.

206. DFS: Chapter 4 - Genral

Check for inconsistency with information presented on Flimsy for 46th SSC. Where in chapter 4 of this RAD is stated that ATS procedures will be in the scope of this IR, the regulation of ATS procedures is as well subject to the regulatory framework of Regulation 216/2008 as amended and will fall under EASA remit according to the Flimsy. PBN provisions are function- and service- related. They address ATM/ANS organisations, airports, flight operations, procedures, service provision, airspace design, air-side equipment, ground system & constituents and personnel. Each addressee of the above has an anchor and partly already existing IRs in one or both regulatory framework of SES and EASA. Prevent that requirements on the (ground) NAV system are dislocated in several regulatory measures (i.e. IOP IR and EASA IR) and several procedures of conformity assessment exist.

Avoid confusing and unmanageable spread of requirements. The regulatory frameworks of SES and EASA are overlapping. Nevertheless new IRs should not be splitted according to whether single requirements thereof relate to safety or interoperability. The application of rules must not result in duplicated effort for conformity assessment by ANSP and manufacturers. This can be ensured by assessing the conformity of requirements on both safety and interoperability within one unique process. A single proof of evidence which needs to be delivered to a single competent authority (CA) shall be possible - regardless under which regulatory framework it performs (as long as harmonisation of the frameworks has not been achieved).

2.3.2.1 Accepted Consistency, removal of duplication and coherence between requirements will be ensured through close coordination and cooperation with EASA.

Germany DFS


- 130 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


207. DFS: Page 35 - Table Issues

The non-availability of high quality aeronautical data in support of PBN is not mentioned. High quality digital data are critical to the implementation of PBN and this crucial dependency must be pointed out. Further, it must be pointed out that appropriate information assurance and in particular information security policies will be applied to ensure safe information exchanges.

Onboard navigation databases will heavily rely on digital aeronautical information and this dependency must be expressed.

Add that the availability of harmonised high quality aeronautical data and their secure exchange are paramount for the implementation of PBN.

2.3.2.11

Accepted The proposed text will be added. Furthermore, it will be considered and analysed during the extended impact assessments and captured in the justification material attached to the draft rule.

Germany DFS

208. DFS: Page 35 - Table Issues 3

It is explained that the dependency on GNSS may introduce a single point of failure. However, no mitigation strategy to this fundamental issue is offered.

The potential failure or disruption of GNSS would have such profound impact on air navigation that a mitigation strategy should be offered.

Add a paragraph on the mitigation strategy and safety assessment regarding the failure/disruption/degradation of GNSS to show that this issue is/will be sufficiently addressed.

2.3.2.6 Accepted The draft RAD presents the result of high level safety consideration on the three regulatory options. The identification of the mitigation measures and/or strategy will be performed during the extended impact assessment. Text will be added as proposed.

Germany DFS

209. DFS: RAD Chapter 6.2

The existence of relevant EASA and FAA compliance material (AMC, CS) should be the driver for determining the implementation date(s).

Even if the PBNIR is not originally designed to support operator approval criteria, the PBNIR should be designed to support harmonisation between airborne and ground implementation.

2.3.2.4 Accepted The availability of means of compliance material is a necessary condition for implementation actions.

Germany DFS

210. E-1.2 It is noted that an assumption is made in the CBA that aircraft over 20 years old will be exempt from the IR.

The operational impact of the exemption assumptions will be highly dependent on the navigation capabilities of the exempted aircraft. As an example if the 'exempt' aircraft are PRNAV capable, the operational impact of the exemption proposal

Review the operational impact of the exemption policy.

2.3.2.3 Accepted The impact will be reviewed.

United Kingdom NATS


- 131 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


may be quite low, if however the 'exempt' aircraft remain reliant on 'conventional VOR and DME navigation, then the impact of the exemption policy will be high. Is it possible to exempt these older aircraft from the ARNP, but require standard RNAV 1?

211. E-1.2 Is the assumption that a forward fit on new aircraft takes place from 2016 credible?

It is noted that the new Garmin range of GTN Avionics introduced in 2012 does not have Radius to Fix capability. It is likely that it will be well into 2014 (date to be confirmed) by the time that the PBN IR is mature, and there does not appear to be much time for equipment design enhancements. Will Europe make representation to the mainly American equipment vendors to update current products?

The assumption should be validated.

2.3.2.3 Accepted The assumption will be reviewed.

United Kingdom NATS

212. E-3.1.1 - E-3.1.2 E-3.1.2 identifies that additional Regulator resource may be required to regulate PBN implementations in general.

It should be noted that in some States, (e.g. UK) the Regulators activity is not a sunken (state) cost and an airport operator is charged for the regulatory activity.

These costs must be added to the figures in E-3.1.1

2.3.2.5 Accepted This fact was noted in the assessment. We would be pleased to receive proposed inputs for these costs.

United Kingdom NATS

213. E-4 - Figure 1 This figure shows the impact of PBN on the growth of Upper airspace Sectors.

It is suggested that the identified number of Upper Airspace sectors without PBN is not really credible as it is highly likely these could not be supported in terms of VHF communications frequencies If PBN reduces the need for sector growth, then it also maximises the economic value of the VHF communications band and allows the required sector growth without needing a radical change in communications technologies. However the CBA should address the 'value' of the PBN IR....so is the reduction in the number of upper

Validate credibility of the capability to implement the number of non PBN Sectors

2.3.2.5 Noted The availability of VHF frequencies is recognised as a major issue facing ATM. Whilst measures such as datalink and PBN will make a significant contribution to reducing the rate of increase in demand for additional frequencies, the 8.33 Implementing

United Kingdom NATS


- 132 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


airspace sectors due to ARNP mandated by the IR, or could it be achieved by a smaller regulatory instrument? Note if validated, the increased efficiency of the VHF communications band has an extremely high financial value that should be factored into in the CBA

Rule, which has now entered into force, will be the principal instrument for ensuring that the availability of frequencies is sufficient.

214. E-7 and E-9 Regarding costs to regulators for implementation of PBN, page E-7 states "there may be the need for some extra resources" while page E-12 states "Regulators are assumed to incur no incremental costs". Experience in the U.S. has shown that investment in regulatory resources (personnel, training, etc.) is beneficial for successful implementations of PBN, as well as ongoing operational safety and support.

Based upon lessons learned, encourage further consideration of this subject.

2.3.2.5 Accepted The comment is accepted and we invite regulators in Europe to provide us with their estimates of the incremental costs which may be generated as a consequence of the implementation of the PBN IR.

United States FAA

215. E.3.2.4 We do not believe that this equipage survey was carried out for the whole fleet referred to in section E.3.2.3.

We have conducted separate analyses on GA equipage, and understand the numbers to be far smaller than those indicated in this table. This is borne out by the levels of functionality to be found in GA avionics (for example, the Garmin 430W/530W do not include RF leg capability). We suspect that the survey referenced here was the navigation capability survey conducted by IATA and ECTL, which looked primarily at Air Transport aircraft. As such, it only really considered around half of the aircraft which will need to be equipped, assuming aircraft only flying twice per month will be able to be exempt

Clarify. Give source reference.

2.3.2.5 Accepted The comment is correct with regard to the survey results presented in section E 3.2.4, which are presented for information only. The derivation of the retrofit cost estimates is summarised in section E 3.2.7. The aircraft appearing in the 2011 traffic sample were segmented into the nine categories shown in figure 5 based on the aircraft type (of which there



- 133 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


were 328) and their age. The number of non-exempt aircraft and the assumed retrofit cost for each category is shown in figure 5.

216. E.3.2.7 Justifying retrofit based on FMS age is not applicable to GA.

The approach in E.3.2.7 is not appropriate for GA. Proper consideration needs to be given to how functionality will be enabled. For example, the cheapest Baro-VNAV box is over $70k. The cheapest box allowing VOR/DME based RNAV (in case of reversion from GNSS) is $100k+. If GA can fly a GNSS+EGNOS based solution, with integrated RF functionality (flown non-coupled), OPMA able to be shown on centre console, geometric VNAV used, etc, then €50k is a reasonable retrofit cost (in fact, it may even be less). There are a lot of "ifs" though.

Update GA retrofit cost dependent on assumptions used.

2.3.2.5 Accepted IAOPA is invited to propose enhancements to our methodology and data for the cost estimates.



- 134 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


217. Enclose 1 - page 24 and other pages - Annex A

A more detailed definition of the terms below would be needed, quoting standardisation documents as much as possible: RNAV holding, APV Baro, APVSBAS, APV Approach procedure, LNAV, VNAV, FRT (Fixed Radius Turn), RF (Radius Fix), Tactical Parallel Offset, 'RTA function' or 'single time constraint' Additionally, more details about the context of operational use would be appreciated.

The definition or understanding of the terms mentioned above varies across industry. A clear definition or exact reference is needed for a final feasibility assessment. Annex A (Operational Services and Environment Definition) identifies the existing standards and Table 1 provides a high level reference to EASA material for the existing PBN capabilities. But there does not seem to be a systematic link between the aircraft capabilities mentioned in the main body and this annex. Describing the operational conditions of use of the PBN capabilities would help specialists in confirming that an implementation complying with the requirements would enable the intended operation.

No change required to the Regulatory Approach Document. We recommend to include in the future Implementing Rule, detailed definitions or precise references to applicable standards (i.e. name, edition, date, chapter, paragraphs) associated with the terms above, and/or to quote the definitions from these standards. We also recommend to reference to a document providing more details about the context of operational use of the PBN capabilities.

2.3.2.2 Accepted PBN manual specifies Advanced RNP. RTCA DO-236C / EUROCAE ED-75C will be published in 2013 containing requirements for RF, FRT, TPO, RTA, LNAV, VNAV. EASA AMC 20-27/28 for APVbaro/SBAS.

France Honeywell Aerospace

218. Enclosure 1 Certain key concepts should be clearly defined: redundancy, reversion, back-up, primary, contingency procedure, operational continuity, robustness, GNSS outage, disruption, alternative PNT, etc.

Ensuring a common understanding throughout all involved stakeholders is essential.

2.3.2.2 Accepted Clarifications will be provided.

Spain AESA/AENA

219. Enclosure 1 The document presented is constructed in such a way that it leads the reader naturally towards a single option out of the three considered - Option 2 - which will provide a "Complete Regulatory Coverage to Enable Deployment of Operational Improvements in EATMN by 2020", as outlined in the "Executive Summary".

Although this result is somehow difficult to avoid, a less biased document giving more balanced information in order to assess the other options would have been preferable.

N/A Noted All available information has been used in the development of the RAD. Clear guidance with respect to the scope of the analysis is given in the EC mandate and the recommendations of the ICB at the start of the mandate

Spain AESA


- 135 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


development process.

220. Enclosure 1 - 5.2 Regulatory Options

In Options 1 to 3, the applicable navigation specification is Advanced RNP (A-RNP) with 1 NM TSE for en-route and terminal airspace.

Advanced RNP (A-RNP) also permits a range of scalable RNP lateral navigation accuracies - see ICAO PBN Manual, Part C, Chapter 4, para 4.3.3.3.4.

It should be clarified whether RNP values lower than 1 NM are considered for the initial and intermediate approach segments.

2.3.2.2 Noted The matter will be analysed during the extended RIA.

Spain AENA

221. Enclosure 1 - 5.2.1 Option 1

"For final approach operations, deployment of RNP approach procedures, Lateral Navigation (LNAV)-only and APV - either APV Baro and/or APV SBAS would be required by the end of 2020..."

In those locations where LPV cannot be implemented it should be considered the possibility of implementing an LP in addition to LNAV in case it provides lower minima than the LNAV, in line with the FAA strategy for RNAV (GNSS) approach procedures.

2.3.2.2 Accepted Consideration to including a mention of LP procedures will be given.

Spain AESA/AENA

222. Enclosure 1 - Page 20 - Section 4.2 - 4th paragraph

"Level 2: Dual area navigation system / dual frequency /Multi constellation GNSS and/or RNP based on conventional NAVAIDs."

It is not clear if RNP based on conventional navigation aids will be available or requested at any time.

Assess the convenience of this statement. Alternatively consider the option of saying "RNAV based on conventional NAVAIDs"

2.3.2.2 Accepted For the short term, the statement should be corrected as proposed (e.g., RNAV accuracy performance - not RNP functionality - to be provided by terrestrial navigation aids). For the long term, RNP provision using DME/DME will be investigated, but is outside the scope of the PBN IR

Spain AESA/AENA


- 136 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


223. Enclosure 1 - Page 27 - Section 6.2.2 - 1st paragraph

"However, where a potential requirement has had significant prior exposure in the industry, the notice period does not necessarily have to run from the publication date of a mandate."

Consider rewording. Possible confusion between mandate and IR?

However, where a potential requirement has had significant prior exposure in the industry, the notice period does not necessarily have to run from the publication date of an IR.

2.3.2.3 Accepted The proposed text will be added.

Spain AENA

224. Enclosure 1 - Page 34 - Section 9.1 - 4th paragraph

"Once a regulatory approach option has been identified as the basis for the draft implementing rule, a full and detailed Extended Regulatory Impact Assessment will be conducted to support the drafting of the specific provisions and justify the draft rule. This impact assessment will be part of the Justification Material included in the Final Report, as required by the Mandate."

Are mitigation actions foreseen in case the results from those extended assessments differ significantly from the results of these preliminary one? (E.g. considering another regulatory approach option)

To describe a mitigation action foreseeing in case that the results from the extended assessments differ significantly from these preliminary ones contained in this document.

N/A Accepted Formal stakeholder consultation on the draft rule and the associated justification material is planned.

Spain AENA

225. Enclosure 1 - Page 35

Issues: 1- Compared to NPA, the introduction of APV procedures will increase the dependency on onboard navigation database.

Only APV SBAS operations increase navigation database dependency with respect to LNAV owing to FAS data storage.

Compared to NPA, the introduction of APV SBAS procedures [...]

2.3.2.6 Rejected Every RNP approach is dependent on navigation database over and above the requirements applicable to NPAs.

Spain AESA/AENA

226. Enclosure 1 - Page 36 - Section 9.3 - Table 3 (Issues)

"2- The analysis highlighted the need for publication of future FRT airways in aeronautical information and identification of these aircraft on aeronautical charts."

Clarification about the word aircraft is requested.

2.3.2.6 Accepted Typing error: ''aircraft'' to be changed to ''airways"

Spain AESA/AENA

227. Enclosure 1 - Page 37 - Section 9.3 - 2nd paragraph

"A further safety analysis will be performed during the Extended Regulatory Impact Assessment activities on the chosen option in order to identify a complete list of safety requirements."

Are mitigation actions foreseen in case that a new safety issue is identified during the detailed safety analysis that forces to introduce a modification in the Regulatory Approach Option chosen?

To describe a mitigation action foreseeing in case that, during the detailed safety analysis, a new safety issue is identified that forces to introduce a significant modification in the Regulation Approach

2.3.2.6 Accepted This process is part of the ESIA and will include the identification of significant changes to the chosen option. Formal stakeholder

Spain AESA/AENA


- 137 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


Option chosen. consultation on the draft rule and the associated justification material is planned.

228. Enclosure 1 - Section 2.2

The "ICAO Doc 9613-AN937 - Performance-based Navigation (PBN) Manual, Advanced Fourth Edition (unedited), 2012" referenced by Section 2.2 is not publicly available.

Draft PBN IR Option 1 is based on "Advanced RNP (1 NM TSE)" (see Section 5.2.1) with Options 2 and 3 building upon Option 1. It is assumed that ICAO Doc 9613- AN937 provides the complete specification for the performance requirements, required navigation functionalities, approval process and aircraft requirements associated with "Advanced RNP (1 NM TSE)". Without access to ICAO Doc 9613-AN937, it is impossible for Garmin to assess the entire set of capabilities that are actually required by Advanced RNP.

The draft PBN IR (or an Annex) should identify precisely the complete specification for the performance requirements, required navigation functionalities, approval process and aircraft requirements associated with "Advanced RNP (1 NM TSE)".

2.3.2.2 Accepted A link to the PBN manual will be provided.

United States GARMIN

229. Enclosure 1 - Section 3

A new subsection should be added to section 3 where the cost of opportunity of taking no action would be addressed.

A new section addressing the possibility of taking no action is missing. This would represent an assessment of the cost of opportunity of introducing no improvements at all, and allowing current traffic situation to continue as it is nowadays. In our opinion, section 3 is very valid though it does demonstrate the necessity of issuing the implementing rule basing the demonstration in the fact that PBN is essential. However, the case we are facing is demonstrating that, in the midterm, the implementation of PBN by means of issuing the implementing rule is a more cost-effective solution than maintaining the current situation.

To add a new subsection in section 3 where the cost of opportunity of taking no action is addressed.

2.3.2.5 Rejected The consequences of not having an implementing rule are highly uncertain. We have assumed that, without the rule, new aircraft would still be suitably PBN equipped but that no retrofit would take place. In practice, some new GA aircraft may not be equipped and some relatively new commercial aircraft may be retrofitted. Additionally, we

Spain AESA


- 138 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


have assumed that, without the Rule, there would be no adoption of common navigation techniques in ATM procedures, but proliferation of varying standards. The analysis avoids the problems of defining a no rule situation by concentrating on the incremental effects of the Rule relative to the no rule situation. In economic terms, the opportunity cost of the Rule is the value of the best alternative use of the funds if the aircraft operators and ANSPs were not to invest in PBN. Whilst each of these organisations could estimate their own opportunity cost, given their different circumstances, it would be unrealistic to try to determine an overall European opportunity cost.


- 139 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


230. Enclosure 1 - Section 3.2.1 - page 15

Particularly in light of the fact that most airline transport and business jet aircraft (referred in the document as "high-end airspace users") have already equipped for PBN and are anxious to reap return on those investments, we concur that there will be increasing demand for mixed-mode operations in the near term. As outlined in the referenced paragraph, continued delay in achieving the benefits and return on that investment resulting from the inherent difficulties with supporting mixed navigation mode operations is problematic. Not only for these operators wanting to attain return on their investment, but also for providers of airborne equipment as well in making the business case for equipping aircraft that are not currently capable, particularly for retrofit.

No change required 2.3.2.5 Accepted We agree with the comment.


231. Enclosure 1 - Section 3.2.2

"Increasing the time between the issuing of a mandate and its applicability date will reduce implementation costs as more new production aircraft can be fitted with required equipment. However, if implementation is deferred in time, the achievements of benefits will be delayed. Moreover, alignment of implementation timescales across different EC mandates is deemed essential in order to enable aircraft operators to minimise equipage costs."

In this particular context it is considered that the publication of the implementing rule is the correct milestone to be mentioned and not the issuing of the mandate. Although it is right that the sooner the mandate is issued the sooner the implementing rule can be ready and that, in the meantime, stakeholders may be aware of the process and that requirements for new equipment, certification, procedures, functionalities, etc, may be requested, the exact requirements are not frozen until the end of this process and only final requirements will be available when the implementing rule is published.

"Increasing the time between the publication of an implementing rule and its applicability date will reduce implementation costs as more new production aircraft can be fitted with required equipment. However, if implementation is deferred in time, the achievements of benefits will be delayed. Moreover, alignment of implementation timescales across different EC mandates is deemed essential in order to enable aircraft operators to minimise equipage costs."

2.3.2.5 Accepted The comment is accepted, although the period during which the Rule is developed does give aircraft operators and ANSPs additional time to prepare for anticipated changes.

Spain AESA/AENA


- 140 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



The concept of back-up procedures (and the contingency procedures by operators) needs to be treated more in-depth and be clearly defined in this document, in order to ensure a common understanding by all the parties (States, ANSPs and operators) as well as the allocation of responsibilities.

It is of the utmost importance that this document does provide unambiguous guidance on how the back-up procedures are to be established by ANSPs and how the contingency procedures have to be defined by operators. This will allow a homogeneous PBN implementation across Europe.

2.3.2.9 Accepted Agreed. Corresponding guidance will be added at a level of detail appropriate to the IR (high level principles only, with more detailed developments & support as part of lower level provisions).

Spain AESA


The fifth bullet on "safety requirements" includes the following statement "During the development of the draft IR some high level security requirements may also be identified." The topic of security is one that it is its infancy in aviation and as such is inappropriate to include in the draft PBN IR.

While EUROCAE WG-72 and RTCA SC 216 are currently working on consensus standards for aircraft security, there is much that is unresolved in terms of practical implementation; for example: * It is unclear whether there is even a need for the security processes to be applied to general aviation operations, charter operations, and cargo operations vs. scheduled air transport operations * It is unclear how to practically apply these immature security processes to equipment that pre-dates the consensus standards

Due to the immature state of consensus standards for aircraft security and their application to various aircraft operations, the draft PBN IR should not include any security requirements. Security should be moved to Section 4.3 "Subjects outside the scope of the draft implementing rule".

N/A Rejected It’s true that security is still in a building up process; however, the draft IR only mentions high level security requirements (not processes) and with a ‘may’ be identified. So the text itself is not too prescriptive. Leaving security out would make it impossible to take it back, in case any requirement ‘could be’ identified. So it seems less risky not to delete the mention to security. Security requirements (in general) are expected to cover also GA and cargo, although not necessarily



- 141 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


identical to airliners'. Also, sometimes security requirements are met by procedures, or via redundancy.


The airworthiness certification and approval of operators are considered outside the scope of the draft implementing rule. This should be ensured by proper coordination with EASA, as already reflected in EASA Rulemaking Programme for 2013-2016. This version of the RMP includes rulemaking tasks RMT.0519 and RMT.0520 "Provision of requirements in support of global PBN operations".

However those aspects should have to be in place before enforcement of the implementing rule (e.g. availability of EASA AMC for A-RNP).

2.3.2.1 Noted None. Spain AESA/AENA


In Option 1 to 3, the applicable navigation specification is Advanced-RNP (A-RNP) with 1 NM TSE for en-route and terminal airspace.

Advanced RNP (A-RNP) also permits a range of scalable RNP lateral navigation accuracies (see ICAO PBN Manual, Part C, Chapter 4, para 4.3.3.3.4).

It should be clarified whether RNP values lower than 1 NM are considered for the initial and intermediate approach segments.

2.3.2.2 Accepted This matter will be further detailed.

Spain AESA

236. Enclosure 1 - Section 5.2 - Table 1

The RF functionality is being presented as independent from the A-RNP specification (e.g. Table 1 of section 5.2) whereas in Table I-B-4-2 2 of the advanced 4th edition of the PBN Manual (ICAO Doc 9613) this is presented as the only required functionality.

The way this information is presented in the document can bring confusion into the assessment and is not in line with the PBN Manual.

Include a link to the relevant sections of the advanced 4th edition of the PBN Manual (ICAO Doc 9613) together with a statement clarifying that RF functionality is part of A-RNP specification.

2.3.2.2 Accepted RF is indeed a requirement for Advanced RNP. A link to PBN manual will be provided.

Spain AESA


"Different decision altitudes may apply to Baro VNAV and APVSBAS, but these would not be lower than CAT I decisions altitude".

In order to cater for near-future developments in the area of APVs, account should be taken of LPV200, which will be possible with release 2.4.1 of the EGNOS software. In fact, Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 recently published defines category I (CAT I) approach operations as follows (Annex I, Definitions for terms used in Annexes

It is suggested to replace by "different decision altitudes may apply to Baro VNAV and APVSBAS that could be as low as 200 ft (depending of runway category and the obstacle environment)".


Spain AESA


- 142 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


II to IV, Definition (12)): " 'category I (CAT I) approach operation' means a precision instrument approach and landing using an instrument landing system (ILS), microwave landing system (MLS), GLS (ground-based augmented global navigation satellite system (GNSS/GBAS) landing system), precision approach radar (PAR) or GNSS using a satellite-based augmentation system (SBAS) with a decision height (DH) not lower that 200 ft and with a runway visual range (RVR) not less than 550 m for aeroplanes and 500 m for helicopters."


"For final approach operations, deployment of RNP approach procedures, Lateral Navigation (LNAV) - only and APV - either Baro and/or APV SBAS would be required by the end of 2020 to replace NPA or as backup to Instrument Landing System (ILS), at all instrument runway ends."

LNAV procedures are also termed GNSSNPA in contrast with the "conventional" NPA flown with the support of "conventional" navigation aids (VOR, DME, NDB). The way the text is worded introduces an ambiguity that goes against the spirit of ICAO Resolution A37-11.

Addition of the word "conventional" before "NPA".


Spain AESA


"Finally, RF functionality would enable the development of procedures with predictable turns in the initial and intermediate phases of the approach. It would be used particularly in the case of terrain and obstacles rich environments or to build new arrival or departure procedures, intended to reduce the extent of noise on a certain route".

Further to comment n°236, the first sentence only refers to the RF functionality in the initial and intermediate phases of the approach whilst the second sentence particularised the use of the functionality of SID and STAR. This poses a seeming contradiction in the applicability of the RF functionality.

Include SID and STAR in the first sentence together with the approach operation.


Spain AESA


"SIDs and STARs with vertical constraints could be flown with coupled guidance (VNAV capability) but autopilot coupling would not be required".

This sentence seems to imply that VNAV capability is on one hand considered an option whilst it is at the same time considered a default capability for Terminal Airspace for all options. In our opinion, VNAV refers to the capability to meet a vertical constraint, but it does not require coupled guidance, i.e. the

Reword the sentence in order to clarify this issue and avoid any misunderstanding as to the nature (whether optional or mandatory) of the VNAV capability.

2.3.2.2 Accepted With VNAV in the arrival phase, no automatic coupling is assumed, only the ability to program altitude constraint in the vertical path.

Spain AESA


- 143 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


autopilot is optional although VNAV capability is mandatory in any option. Further clarification would be required to avoid any misunderstanding.


" With this required airborne functionality, ATS would be able to provide better tactical control of the traffic flows and thus contribute to the reduction of flight delays. This could be achieved through the use of the TOAC functionality, as defined by EUROCAE ED-75B/RTCADO-236B, as the basis for managing constraints as close as possible to congested areas rather than using take-off slots. Depending on the accuracies achieved, the necessary procedures and the tools would be developed and deployed."

At least the minimum performance standards required for this time constraint capability of the aircraft should be specified, in particular in what relates to the tolerance/accuracy of the time windows (en-route and TMA). This was initially included in WP19 presented under agenda item 9.3 at NETOPS/2. In particular, its paragraph 5.6 states that "limited 4D navigation capability will be provided to meet a given ATC time constraint in en-route airspace with a 30 seconds window performance". Paragraph 5.7 then goes on to say that " the performance standards required are not as demanding in en-route airspace i.e. +/- 30 seconds) as in the TMA (i.e. +/- 10 seconds). Finally, paragraph 5.13 states that "the RTA performance requirement is as demanding as +/- 10 seconds". Note: Time of Arrival Control (TOAC) is still to be developed in the PBNMAnual, Volume II, Appendix 3 to Part C.

Inclusion of the text from NETOPS/2 WP19 highlighted above or clarification of the reason for not making explicit reference to the window performance values under NETOPS/2 WP19.

2.3.2.2 Accepted RTCA DO-236C / EUROCAE ED-75C will require 30s RTA in cruise and 10s RTA in the TMA. The values are not specified in the draft RAD due to fact that the revised RTCA/EUROCAE documents mentioned above are planned to be published in 2013.

Spain AESA


- 144 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


242. Enclosure 1 - Section 5.2.4 - Table 2

"... ANSPs. En-Route. Establish ATC back up procedures in case of GNSS outage for all phases of flight. ... ANSPs. Final Approach. Establish back up procedures to loss of GNSS signal in space" As already sated under comment n°5, the concept of back-up procedures (and of contingency procedures by operators) needs to be treated more in-depth and be clearly defined in this document, in order to ensure common understanding by all the parties (States, ANSPs and operators) as well as the allocation of responsibilities.

It is of the utmost importance that this document does provide unambiguous guidance on how the back-up procedures are to be established by ANSPs and how the contingency procedures have to be defined by operators. This will allow a homogeneous PBN implementation across Europe.

2.3.2.9

Accepted Agreed. Corresponding guidance will be added at a level of detail appropriate to the IR (high level principles only, with more detailed developments & support as part of lower level provisions).

Spain AESA


The ANSP section in Table 2 include actions for "Terminal Airspace" in addition to En-Route and Final Approach.

The reason for stating 'ATC' back-up procedures for en-route and not for final approach in the following sentences is not known: "...ANSPs. En-Route. Establish ATC back up procedures in case of GNSS outage for all phases of flight. ... ANSPs. Final Approach. Establish back up procedures to loss of GNSS signal in space."

"...ANSPs. En-Route. Establish ATC back up procedures in case of GNSS outage for all phases of flight. ... ANSPs. Final Approach. Establish ATC back up procedures to loss of GNSS signal in space."

2.3.2.2 Accepted Action will be added.

Spain AESA


The action "Member states. All phases of flight. Approve GNSS as primary means of navigation for all phases of flight" would imply the acceptance of the GNSS signal-in-space (SiS) by the States as a sine qua non condition for its fulfilment. This same issue would also arise in those States that have authorised the use of the signal as supplementary means but not as primary means (for instance, Spain).

This brings in the question of whether a regulation stemming from the Commission can set the obligation onto a sovereign State on the use of the GNSS SiS for air navigation or on the acceptance of a navigation system as primary means.

In relation to the case of evolving from supplementary means to primary means, the regulation should introduce the definition of clear and encompassing criteria for a homogeneous evolution within the European airspace.

2.3.2.10

Noted The point of the applicability of SES to GPS/GNSS is under consideration at present. The matter was discussed with the SSC in 2010 and is likely to be discussed further in early 2013. The matter should be clarified before

Spain AESA


- 145 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


PBN enters into force, i.e. before 2015.


The term " primary means" must be clearly defined so as to ensure an unambiguous understanding by all stakeholders.

The term "primary means" has been understood in a different manner by ANSPs, operators, avionic manufacturers and civil aviation authorities and given rise to misunderstandings whilst implementing navigation systems.

The following definition is proposed: Primary means navigation system: a navigation system approved for a given operation or phase of flight that must meet accuracy and integrity requirements, but need not meet full availability and continuity of service requirements. Safety is achieved by limiting flights to specific time periods, and through appropriate procedural restrictions. There is no requirement to have a sole means navigation system on board to support a primary means system. Primary means is differentiated from sole means by the planning aspect; a primary means system meets requirements most of the time, but flights must be planned around periods of unavailability. Supplemental means is differentiated from

2.3.2.2 Noted The proposed definition will be considered during the drafting of the rule and the extended RIA.

Spain AESA


- 146 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


primary means by the need to have a sole means system on board for back-up. This recognises the fact that supplemental systems have lower availability than primary means, a shortcoming that cannot be addressed by planning alone. [Note: definitions of sole means and supplemental means of navigation should also be included.]


The ANSP section in Table 2 should include actions for 'Terminal Airspace' in addition to En-Route and Final Approach.

The reason for stating 'ATC' back-up procedures for en-route and not for final approach in the following sentences is not known. "...ANSPs. En-Route. Establish ATC back up procedures in case of GNSS outage for all phases of flight. ...ANSPs. Final Approach. Establish back up procedures to loss of GNSS signal in space."

"...ANSPs. En-Route. Establish ATC back up procedures in case of GNSS outage for all phases of flight. ...ANSPs. Final Approach. Establish ATC back up procedures to loss of GNSS signal in space."

2.3.2.2 Accepted Action will be added.

Spain AESA


"However where a potential requirement has had significant prior exposure in the industry, the notice period does not necessarily have to run from the publication date of a mandate".

Consider rewording. The current wording could lead to a confusion between mandate and implementing rule.

"However, where a potential requirement has had significant prior exposure in the industry, the notice period does not necessarily have to run from the publication date of an implementing rule."

N/A Accepted The text will be modified as proposed.

Spain AESA


- 147 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



Section 6.2.2 includes the statements "It is a generally accepted convention that regulators should aim at giving the aviation industry a 7-year notice period for new equipage requirements. However, where a potential requirement has had significant prior exposure in industry, the notice period does not necessarily have to run from the publication date of the mandate."

It would appear from these statements that EUROCONTROL is seeking to justify a reduced notice period for the PBN IR. As noted in Garmin's comments on the draft PBN IR Table 1, the maturity and availability of the airborne functionalities are overstated, particularly with respect to business aviation and general aviation aircraft. Since RTCA SC-227 is currently evaluating whether revised requirements are necessary for several of the draft PBN IR functionalities and these requirement revisions are currently scheduled for completion no earlier than March 2014, it may be infeasible to complete equipment updates in time to meet the proposed 2020 mandate. Additionally, currently, there is no effort underway to revise RTCA/DO-229D requirements that are shared with RTCA/DO-238A to ensure that E/TSO-C146 and TSO-C115 equipment have harmonized requirements.

EUROCONTROL should retain the typical 7-year notice period and begin the transition at the point where harmonized equipment standards, presumably via TSOC115d based on RTCA/DO-283B and E/TSO-C146d based on RTCA/DO-229E, are available. If both standards were harmonized by March 2014 then the mandate would be for March 2021.

2.3.2.3 Accepted RTCA DO-236C / EUROCAE ED-75C to be completed in 2013. Also it needs to be further detailed to which aircraft the PBN IR applies. Applicability dates will be subject to careful assessment during the drafting of the rule and the extended RIA.



- 148 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



Section 6.2.3 includes the statement "Specific problems faced by the military include the high number of aircraft, multiple types and variants, limited ... budgets, lengthily [sic] procurement processes and technical difficulties in fitting additional equipment in already very complex aircraft."

It would appear from these statements that EUROCONTROL attributes these problems only to military aircraft operators. All of these problems are equally applicable to civilian aircraft operators and should not be glossed over by the PBN IR.

EUROCONTROL should ensure that the notice period accounts for these problems with civilian aircraft operators to provide sufficient time to transition the aircraft fleet and meet the mandate.

2.3.2.7 Noted See also response to comment nr 184. The severity of those problems is totally different for military operators due to a wider variety of aircraft types and variants and dissimilar missions. Industry comments on the maturity and availability of the airborne functionalities will be carefully considered.



Section 6.2.4 includes the statement "These stakeholders [avionics and aircraft manufacturers and aircraft operators] are also consulted throughout the development process of the draft IR and can influence the implementation timescales to satisfy any foreseen constraint upon equipment availability."

As noted in Garmin's comments on the draft PBN IR Table 1, the maturity and availability of the airborne functionalities are overstated, particularly with respect to business aviation and general aviation aircraft.

Experience with the LINK 2000+ EUROCONTROL mandate is that industry input was not adequately considered. It is hoped that EUROCONTROL will carefully consider the comments on the maturity and availability of the airborne functionalities to appropriately "influence the implementation timescales".

2.3.2.3 Noted Industry comments on the maturity and availability of the airborne functionalities will be carefully considered.



- 149 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



Section 6.2.5 includes the statements "Therefore, the draft IR would mandate a deadline for the deployment of PBN applications by ANSPs in the EATMN. The required date could be linked to the proposed aircraft equipage date."

Avionics manufacturer experience with the LINK 2000+ EUROCONTROL mandate requiring aircraft equipage prior to ANSP deployment has been overwhelmingly negative.

To ensure maximum benefit, EUROCONTROL should ensure the ANSP deployment is scheduled to precede the aircraft equipage to provide an incentive for early aircraft equipage. Otherwise, aircraft operators will delay upgrades to their equipment until near the mandatory date, thus creating a backlog and necessitating exemptions.

2.3.2.5 Noted The sentiments behind the comment are noted and well understood. However, requiring ANSPs to offer PBN enabled procedures before a suitably large proportion of aircraft are able to comply with them will lead to significant problems of mixed mode operation. The objective is to achieve parallel implementation on the ground and in the air. In the case of LINK 2000+ a financial incentive scheme was proposed to encourage earlier aircraft equipage. Although part 1 of the scheme, funded by the European Commission, was implemented, unfortunately the more extensive part 2 was not put into action.



This second bullet in section 6.3 includes the statements "The class of aircraft to which the rule will apply must be defined. For example, only those aircraft above a certain maximum take-off mass or a specified maximum approved passenger seating configuration."

The example aircraft class has been the norm for recent EUROCONTROL rules like LINK 2000+. However, the example aircraft classes are insufficient as many of the "aircraft above a certain take-off mass"

EUROCONTROL should consult with general aviation and business aviation avionics and aircraft manufacturers and

2.3.2.5 Accepted A number of potential exemption criteria are included in the RAD, not actually including MTOW,



- 150 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


(typically 5700 kilos) have equipment integration issues such as those identified in Garmin's comments on the capability to meet a single time constraint and terminal VNAV functionality. Additionally, the draft PBN IR section 9.4 suggests that "It is important to exempt infrequent users of European airspace" as well as exempting "old aircraft from the retrofit requirement"; consequently, considering aircraft class only by maximum takeoff mass or maximum approved passenger seating configuration seems inconsistent with other possible methods of applying the mandate.

aircraft operators to arrive at acceptable aircraft classifications for the PBN IR mandate other than those which have been the norm on past mandates.

but one of the objectives of the consultation process is to determine what appropriate, practical exemption criteria are. Proposals from Garmin will be welcome. However, it should be noted that, in order to ensure the practical application of PBN enabled procedures, exemptions will have to be minimised as much as possible.


Option 2 (in fact, all three options) should include the requirement of marginal level of exemptions (ideally, non-admission of exemptions) to the full implementation of the whole set of functionalities required.

The need for a level of exemptions as low as possible is already clearly stated in the document as one of the main enablers for the achievement of the full benefits of A-RNP. Moreover, the results stated in EUROCONTROL's "Advanced Required Navigation Performance (A-RNP) Real-Time Simulation (RTS) Final Report" (CRDS/SIM/RTS-10067-FEU) in relation to the mixed-mode operations are conclusive in this respect.

2.3.2.3 Noted It is intended that exemptions only be granted where they have a minor effect on the volume of flights by equipped aircraft and where the effect can be expected to reduce overtime

Spain AESA


- 151 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



Section 6.4 describes possible Airborne Exemption Policy Principles. Previous EUROCONTROL mandate exemption processes have caused difficulties to avionics and aircraft manufacturers and aircraft operators.

Garmin, as an avionics manufacturer, and its aircraft manufacturing partners experienced the following difficulties with the LINK 2000+ temporary exemption process: * Exemptions to the mandate were written with respect to how an airframe could gain permanent exemption. Temporary exemptions were offered but there was confusion among the applicants as to which exemptions they should reference to substantiate the exemption request. * There were long delays between when exemptions were accepted and the time rulings were made. These long delays caused uncertainty among avionics manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers and aircraft operators. For example, exemptions were accepted for nearly a year. After the exemptions period closed, another ~6 months passed until a final decision was made. * There wasn't a clearly stated requirement as to how to disposition aircraft which were covered under temporary exemption. There was confusion among the aircraft manufacturers as to when they had to retrofit their exempted aircraft when the exemptions expired. * There was confusion on how to differentiate multiple versions of an aircraft and approved exemptions. For example, Garmin experienced this with Cessna X vs Ten and the Lear 45 vs 75 (before the 75 was named). An older aircraft version may have received a permanent exemption and there didn't appear to be a good way for the authorities to figure out which versions did or did not have an exemption.

EUROCONTROL should ensure the PBN IR mandate exemption processes are clearly defined and address the aforementioned issues.

2.3.2.3 Accepted Clear definition of the exemption process will be ensured and consideration will be given to these issues.



- 152 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


* Enforcement policies if an exemption was not granted were unclear. Aircraft manufacturers often questioned Garmin as to whether their aircraft deliveries would be halted or if the penalty would be an operational restriction. Garmin could not answer these questions due to the unclear enforcement policies.


"Once a regulatory approach option has been identified as the basis for the draft implementing rule, a full and detailed Extended Regulatory Impact Assessment will be conducted to support the drafting of the specific provisions and justify the draft rule. This impact assessment will be part of the Justification Material included in the Final report, as required by the Mandate."

Are mitigation actions foreseen in case the results from those extended assessments differ significantly from the results of these preliminary one? (E.g. considering another regulatory approach option.)

To describe a mitigation action foreseeing in case that the results from the extended assessments differ significantly from the preliminary ones contained in this document.

N/A Accepted Formal stakeholder consultation is planned to take place on the draft rule and the justification material.

Spain AESA

256. Enclosure 1 - Section 9.3 - Table 3

Option 1. ISSUES. 3. May introduce a single point of failure due to the dependency on the GNSS system."

Rewording is suggested. The meaning of the sentence is misleading. it can be understood that the introduction of the A-RNP specification may or may not introduce a single point of failure, what is partially true. A single point of failure is introduced i.e. in case of GNSS or RAIM outage, or in case of onboard single GNSS system failure (Continuity Level 1). On the other hand this single point of failure it is not introduced when dual GNSS or multi-constellation, or multi-frequency or RNP based on conventional is available onboard (Continuity Level 2). However, the most stringent case should prevail where a single point of failure is introduced.

"Option1. ISSUES. 3. A single point of failure is introduced, due to the dependency on the GNSS system".


Spain AESA


- 153 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



Section 9.4 describes the Economic and Efficiency Impact and summarizes information provided in Annex E. The Annex E cost of development, installation and certification of the proposed Option 2 functionalities are underestimated for business aviation and general aviation aircraft. Further, the Annex E analysis is unclear as to the types of aircraft considered as "business/turboprop" and those considered as "general aviation".

Specific reasons for commenting that the cost of development, installation and certification of the proposed Option 2 functionalities are underestimated as well as the lack of clarity regarding the types of aircraft considered as “business/turboprop” and “general aviation” follows. These comments are focused on the Option 2 functionalities due to the draft PBN IR Section 11.2 Recommendation for Option 2. • Section 9.4 includes the statements “Retrofit cost estimates for Option 1 are not currently available and given the various functionalities cannot be provided in an incremental manner, these cannot be realistically deducedfrom the Option 2 cost estimates. Additionally, estimates are not yet available for Option 3, since the requirements are not yet fully developed …” Given these statements, it would appear that EUROCONTROL considers the Annex E cost estimates to be applicable only to Option 2. • With regard to the Annex E cost estimates, Garmin provides the following comments: 1. Annex E section E.3.2.2 describes an Airbus study regarding the average replacement age for European aircraft. Section E.3.2.2 uses this survey result to conclude that “If it is assumed that aircraft required to retrofit by the draft

EUROCONTROL should revise the Economic and Efficiency Impact to address the above comments to clarify the aircraft classifications and update the costs associated with complying with the proposed Option 2 functionalities.

2.3.2.52.3.2.8

Noted The types of aircraft included within the categories can be made available. EUROCONTROL will welcome the opportunity to work with Garmin to improve the cost estimates.



- 154 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


implementing rule should have a useful working life of at least five years after the date for mandatory equipage, they should be no more than 20 years old in 2020.” Garmin notes that the Airbus study likely only considered transport aircraft as the FAA’s Part 23 – Small Airplane Certification Process Study published in July 2009 states “…the average fleet age for part 23 airplanes is already over 40 years old.” (p. 8) Regardless, the assumption that the ability to retrofit an aircraft by aircraft age is inappropriate, particularly for functionality such as terminal VNAV and RTA. As previously noted, terminal VNAV functionality requires integration with PFD to provide guidance, altitude and/or vertical speed cues, and baro setting as well as integration with an air data system to provide pressure altitude and airspeed; integration with a flight director and/or autopilot also may be required. RTA may require even greater integration. While it might be typical for an air transport FMS to have such integration, such integration in general/business aviation piston, turboprops, and turbojets are only typically available when the aircraft has been fitted with an integrated cockpit such as a G1000. For reference, the initial certification of Garmin’s G1000 did not occur until 2004. Garmin’s G1000 now has been certified in 36 aircraft models, which amounts to an average certification rate of 4 aircraft models


- 155 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


per year. Consequently, using an aircraft manufacturing date of 2000 to support the 2020 mandate for retrofitting general/business aviation aircraft is not appropriate. 2. Annex E section E.3.2.4 describes an EUROCONTROL analysis of the equipage of the ECAC fleet. It is unclear whether this analysis included general/business aviation piston, turboprops, and turbojets. 3. Annex E section E.3.2.7 includes the statements that “In many Flight Management Systems, RF capability was introduced about 10 years ago, meaning that all aircraft equipped with such an FMS type andbeing less than 10 years old are already likely to have most of the required functionality envisaged for Options 1 and 2. It is assumed that they would only require a software upgrade to include the FRT capability.” It is unclear how the conclusion that a FMS that has RF capability “would only require a software upgrade to include the FRT capability” was arrived at when Option 2 specifies a capability to meet a single time constraint, which Garmin interprets as RTA, and Annex E Figure 3 indicates only 28% of the analyzed ECAC fleet has a RTA 30s capability. 28% RTA 30s capability is considerably less than the Figure 3 44% RF capability and thus consideration should have been given to the RF retrofit also requiring an upgrade to support RTA. Consequently, the Annex E Figure 5


- 156 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


retrofit costs for “aircraft with RF” appear to be based on a flawed assumption and inappropriately ignore the costs for RTA capability. 4. Annex E section E.3.2.7 includes the statements that “Aircraft older than about 15 years might not only need an FMS retrofit but also upgrades to the Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) and the coupling with the Flight Guidance System. However, it is assumed that these aircraft will be exempted from the draft rule.” It is unclear what basis was used to assume that aircraft older than about 15 years “will be exempted from the draft rule” since the Enclosure 1 section 9.4 and Annex E section E.4.2.4 discussions seem to be more closely aligned with a 20 year age exemption. Additionally, it wasn’t until 2005 or 2006 that a high percentage of newly produced general aviation/business aircraft had EFIS (PFD/MFD) available. Even today (2012), the Learjet 40/45 aircraft continue to be delivered with a first-generation EFIS that likely will not even have upgrades available. Thus, as noted earlier, the assumption that the ability to retrofit an aircraft by aircraft age is inappropriate, particularly for functionality such as terminal VNAV and RTA. 5. Annex E Figure 5 breaks aircraft into three primary categories: mainline, regional/business/turboprop, and general aviation. While there is an explanation that “Mainline aircraft refers to Airbus, Boeing, and McDonnel [sic] Douglas aircraft”


- 157 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


there is no similar explanation for what aircraft constitute “business/turboprop” in the “regional/business/turboprop” category nor any explanation for what aircraft constitute the “general aviation” category. Annex E could begrouping Cirrus SR22 (single engine piston), Beechcraft Baron (twin engine piston), Socata TBM850 (single engine turboprop), BeechcraftKing Air (twin engine turboprop), and Cessna Mustang (twin engine VLJ) that are used for business flights with Bombardier Q400 and ATR 72 (twin engine turboprops) and Embraer ERJ 145 (twin engine turbojet) used for regional airline service. Consequently, it is unclear whether these are accurately reflected in the Annex E section E.4.2.2 discussion on Relative Impact on Aircraft Operators whose Figure 7 includes aircraft categories of business jets, general aviation – turboprop, and other general aviation. Annex 5 Figure 5 should bebased on the same aircraft categories used in Annex 5 Figure 7 and there should be an explanation as to examples of aircraft models that were included in each of the aircraft categories. 6. Annex 5 Figure 5 includes a general aviation retrofit estimated cost of € 50,000. At current exchange rates, € 50,000 is approximately $63,400. For the majority of business and general aviation aircraft the most


- 158 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


likely scenario for retrofit baro VNAV and RTA capability is through a very expensive avionics upgrade to an integrated flight deck via a model-specific Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). Due to the expense involved with obtaining such an STC, the possible aircraft types that will have access to a retrofit integrated flight deck upgradewill be limited due to the resources required of both certified avionics manufacturers and installers. A realistic cost for a Part 25 business jet to obtain E/TSO-C146 navigation equipment that interfaces to an autopilot is $100,000 (see http://finance.yahoo.com/news/butler-national-corporation-offers-lear- 130000694.html). This upgrade supports the following Option 2 capabilities: • En route – TPO (using current TSO-C146 and RTCA/DO-229D requirements) • Terminal – Advanced RNP (1NM TSE) (provided this capability only means a 1 NM lateral deviation full-scale deflection and a 1 NM Horizontal Alert Limit), RNAV Holding • Final approach - APV using SBAS and LNAV A realistic cost for a Part 23 turboprop to add PFD/MFD interfaces to provide integration support that could allow Terminal VNAV and RTA capability is $169,000 (see http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/nbaaconvention- news/2012-10-30/garmin-g600-avionics-be-installed-pc-12s); this cost


- 159 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


assumes the E/TSO-C146 navigation equipment is already installed. The combined cost of $269,000 provides the baseline capability that may lead to full Option 2 capabilities but does not include the additional costs to upgrade software or add other possibly required equipment such as auto-throttle and data link to support the following Option 2 capabilities: • En route – Advanced RNP (1NM TSE) (provided this capability only means a 1 NM lateral deviation full-scale deflection and a 1 NM Horizontal Alert Limit), FRT, TPO (assuming changes result from RTCA SC-227), RTA • Terminal – RF, VNAV Consequently, the Annex 5 general aviation retrofit estimated cost is easily low by a factor of 4 to 5 times assuming today’s equipment certification environment.

258. Enclosure 1 - Section 9.4 - Enclosure 2 - Annex E

In relation to comment N°219, the economic analysis presented in section 9.4 and detailed in Annex E is limited both for Option1 and, more clearly for Option 3. The analysis mainly focuses in the costs and benefits of implementing Option 2. On the other hand, a return on investment (Rol) of 22% for the implementation of Option 2 is not considered realistic, moreover taking into consideration the values used by the Commission for their evaluations (threshold rate of 4% for public sector infrastructure).

Although this result is somehow difficult to avoid, a less biased document giving more balanced information in order to assess the other options would have been preferable.

2.3.2.5 Noted It was intended to prepare an analysis of all three options but problems were encountered in obtaining sufficient reliable information. Option 2 represents the full scope of what might be achieved by 2021 and some studies and analysis have been carried out for this case. An initial cost estimate

Spain AESA


- 160 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


for aircraft equipage was available from industry and simulations have been carried out at the European Airspace Validation Unit in Budapest. No similar information was readily available for Options 1 and 3. Consideration was given to deriving costs and benefits for Option 1 from the Option 2 values but, since the costs of providing the various aircraft functionalities is not incremental, no reliable method was found for sub-dividing Option 2 costs to provide Option 1 costs. Similarly, no method of modifying the productivity benefits from the Budapest simulations was found. It was concluded that any Option 1 costs and benefits produced on this basis could be more misleading than


- 161 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


helpful. The problem with Option 3 is that part of the underlying technology required is still under development, as is the operational concept under which it would be introduced. The reliability of any cost and benefit estimates would therefore be limited until such time as the relevant concepts had been further developed. A decision had therefore to be taken whether to delay the production of the RAD until further studies and simulations had been carried out or to present the existing material for consultation. Since informal consultation had indicated that the preferred approach was likely to be Option 2, or fairly close to it, and that Option 3 may be considered as


- 162 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


more of an intention for the future than a current possibility, it was decided to go ahead with the formal consultation process. A more detailed appraisal of the preferred option will be carried out following the consultation phase. The 22% rate of return follows directly from the assumptions used.

259. Enclosure 1 - Section 9.4 - pages 37-39

Option 2 in our opinion strikes the necessary balance towards establishing a definitive path in the direction of the desired end state where all stakeholders are gaining the benefits envisioned throughout the development of the PBN concept, particularly the economic and efficiency improvements outlined in the referenced section. This option establishes a foundation for 4D trajectory management operations which can be extended and enhanced as aircraft solutions become more available and business cases mature.

The analysis provided in this section properly highlights the increased capacity of ATC , routing efficiencies, and reduced environmental impact more than offset the costs of equipping the aircraft that are not currently compliant with the Option 2 requirements. Given the current lack of supporting data available, the 22% estimated rate of return achieved by Option 2 is sufficiently conservative yet compelling.

No change required. N/A Noted None France Honeywell Aerospace


- 163 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


260. Enclosure 1 - Table 1 Summary of aircraft functionalities...

Table 1 summarizes the airborne functionalities required for each Regulatory Option. The maturity and availability of the airborne functionalities are overstated, particularly with respect to business aviation and general aviation aircraft.

Specific reasons for commenting that the maturity and availability of the Table 1 airborne functionalities are overstated follow. These comments are focused on the Option 2 functionalities due to the draft PBN IR Section 11.2 Recommendation forOption 2. En route Required Aircraft Functionalities • Advanced RNP (1 NM TSE) – As noted in Garmin’s comment on Section 2.2, the “ICAO Doc 9613–AN937 – Performance-based Navigation (PBN) Manual, Advanced Fourth Edition (unedited), 2012” which is assumed to provide the complete specification for the performance requirements, required navigation functionalities, approval process and aircraft requirements associated with “Advanced RNP (1 NM TSE)” is not publicly available. Consequently, it is impossible for Garmin to assess the entire set of capabilities that are actually required by Advanced RNP. However, Garmin makes the following observation assuming that Advanced RNP (1 NM TSE) requires at least a lateral deviation full-scale deflection (FSD) and a Horizontal Alert Limit (HAL) of 1 NM: A significant number of general aviation aircraft, both Part 23 and Part 25, are being equipped with E/TSO-C146 (primary GPS/SBAS based on RTCA/DO-229C or RTCA/DO-229D)equipment due to the benefits of APV and LNAV final approach. E/TSOC146 requires a default en route lateral deviation FSD and HAL of 2 NM (see RTCA/DO-229D 2.2.2.4.2 and 2.2.2.6.1, respectively).

Advanced RNP that are not currently required by RTCA/DO-229D. • RF – EUROCONTROL should request that if there are changes to the RTCA/DO-283A RF requirements that similar changes be made to RTCA/DO- 229D RF requirements and the mandate requirements should be based on the revised requirements (presumably RTCA/DO-238B and RTCA/DO-229E). Additionally, EUROCONTROL should clarify that flight director (FD) or rollsteering autopilot (AP) are not requirements for draft PBN IR RF functionality. Garmin’s Radius to Fix Turn Project Report (005-00586-20 rev 1) provided to FAA in support of Memorandum of Agreement Number DTFAWA-11-A-80009 shows that instrument-rated general aviation pilots are able to hand fly RF legs and meet a 0.5 nm 95% FTE target without the aid of FD or AP in Part 23 Category A and B aircraft that are

2.3.2.8 Noted It is intended that proportionality is applied when setting requirements on GA operators consistent with the capabilities compliant with E/TSO-C146 requirements. Consideration will be given to excluding small GA aircraft from requirements outside of the approach phase. Detailed description of requirements and breakdown of impact on GA will be provided.



- 164 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


Additionally, E/TSO-C146 has no requirement to extract the RNP value from the navigation database or for pilot manual selection of the RNP value. Furthermore, en route 1 NM RNP is inconsistent with FAA’s NextGen Implementation Plan (March 2012), which states “Domestically, Area Navigation (RNAV) 2 provides the required capability en route.” (p. 42) • FRT above FL 195 – A significant number of general aviation aircraft, both Part 23 and Part 25, are being equipped with E/TSO-C146 equipment due to the benefits of APV and LNAV final approach. FRT is an optional capability for E/TSO-C146 (see RTCA/DO-229D 2.2.1.3.9). Additionally, while FRT is currently required for TSO-C115c (see RTCA/DO-238A 2.2.2.9.2; EASA is in the process of updating ETSO-C115b to ETSO-C115c to reference RTCA/DO-283A via NPA 2012- 16), it was not required for previous multi-sensor FMS equipment. Furthermore, RTCA SC-227 Change Proposal M1-2a1 may drive changes to FRT equipment requirements that will be included in RTCA/DO-283B, which may not be completed until March 2014 (see RTCA SC-227 Terms of Reference available at http://www.rtca.org/CMS_DOC/SC-227%20-20TOR%20Rev%201%20- %20PMC%20Approved%2006-13-2012.pdf). Consequently, while the current E/TSO-C146 FRT requirements are harmonized with the current TSO-C115c FRT requirements, there is no guarantee that this will remain the case. Lastly, there is no indication as to

either minimally equipped (steam gauge) or technically advanced (integrated flight deck). Garmin intends to share this report’s results with RTCA SC-227 and hopes that the RTCA/DO- 283B FTE assumptions will be adjusted accordingly; however, if this report’s results are not accepted, many GA aircraft may have to be excluded from the draft PBN IR mandate for RF functionality due to lack of FD/AP or lack of a certified combination of navigation and flight guidance equipment. • VNAV – EUROCONTROL should exclude business and general aviation aircraft from the mandate to have terminal VNAV functionality. This is reasonable given that Annex E Figure 7 shows business jets, general aviation – turboprop, and other general aviation aircraft together account for only 16% of the flights and only 8% of the flight hours while being burdened with 44% of the costs (note the 44%


- 165 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


whether there is an expectation that flight director (FD) or roll-steering autopilot (AP) will be required to support FRT; see Garmin’s reason for comments on Terminal RF functionality regarding flight director and autopilot, which may be applicable to FRT. • Tactical Parallel Offset (TPO) – A significant number of general aviation aircraft, both Part 23 and Part 25, are being equipped with E/TSO-C146 equipment due to the benefits of APV and LNAV final approach. TPO is a required capability for E/TSO-C146 (see RTCA/DO-229D 2.2.1.3.16) and its requirements are harmonized with those for TSO-C115c (see RTCA/DO-238A 2.2.2.7). However, TPO was not required for previous multi-sensor FMS equipment. Additionally, per RTCA SC-227 Change Proposal M1-10a Background “In today’s navigation systems, there are different implementations of the parallel offset; some of these differences are significant and sufficient to limit its use in a Performance Based or Trajectory Based air traffic system. This has resulted in reluctance by the Air Traffic Management System to utilize it as tool for traffic sequencing, passing or DE confliction [sic]. In addition, since the publication of DO-236B the additional uses of the parallel offset have been identified. The new capabilities will require changes to the current implementations to insure consistent path conformity and accommodate the new uses.” RTCA SC-227 Change Proposal M1-10a may drive changes to the TPO equipment

cost percentage is likely low as shown in Garmin’s Enclosure 1, Section 9.4 comments).


- 166 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


requirements that will be included in RTCA/DO-283B, which may not be completed until March 2014. Consequently, while the current E/TSO-C146 TPO requirements are harmonized with the current TSO-C115c TPO requirements, there is no guarantee that this will remain the case. • Capability to meet a single time constraint – A significant number of general aviation aircraft, both Part 23 and Part 25, are being equipped with E/TSO C146 equipment due to the benefits of APV and LNAV final approach. The ability to meet a time constraint (commonly referred to as Required Time of Arrival or RTA) is not even mentioned in the E/TSO-C146 requirements (RTCA/DO-229D). Similarly, TSO-C115c has no RTA requirements (RTCA/DO- 238A). While the RTCA/DO-236B MASPS upon which RTCA/DO-283A is based does include some sections that minimally describe the concept of Time of Arrival Control, or TOAC, which is the function used to provide speed control necessary to meet a RTA, the TOAC requirements were not brought over to the RTCA/DO-238A MOPS. Consequently, while a level of TOAC functionality has been available in some modern air transport jet FMS for years, that TOAC functionality is not based on harmonized requirements whose purpose is to improve traffic management and efficiency. RTCA SC-227 Change Proposal M1-x04 is revising the RTCA/DO-236B MASPS TOAC requirements which are expected to lead to harmonized TOAC equipment requirements that


- 167 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


will be included in RTCA/DO-283B, which may not be completed until March 2014. Additionally, the draft PBN IR Annex E Figure 3 equipage survey results indicate that RTA 30s functionality exists in less than 30% of the surveyed fleet. It is unclear from Annex E whether this survey included business and general aviation aircraft or whether the survey was based solely on air transport aircraft. Furthermore, despite the low RTA/TOAC fleet capability, the draft PBN IR Annex E Figure 5 retrofit cost does not specify what manner of retrofit equipment will be required to provide RTA/TOAC capability for any aircraft category let alone what manner of retrofit equipment will be required to provide RTA/TOAC capability in the business and general aviation fleet. For example, draft PBN IR Annex C section C.3.3.3.1 states that “Autopilot and/or auto-throttle coupling would not be required.” However, the SESAR trials that are being used as the basis for RTCA SC-227 TOAC updates are being performed with aircraft that have auto-throttle capabilities. There is also no installation guidance available for RTA so it is unclear whether it will be necessary to display a speed target in the pilot’s primary field of view nor whether there is a need for the capability to uplink wind information (the SESAR trial aircraft have data link capability). Neither the speed target display output nor the data link wind capability are presently available on any E/TSO-C146 equipment. Further,


- 168 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


assuming that auto-throttle is not required, per FAA Practical Test Standards, (PTS) a private, commercial and air transport (ATP) pilot is only required to be able to hold airspeed in the departure, en route, and arrival route structures to +/- 10 kts. At typical general aviation airspeeds of 150 kts, this can result in an allowable variance in ETE of +171sec / -150 sec per 100nm flown. There are no PTS standards for a pilot to be able to maintain a specific groundspeed, which is what E/TSO-C146 equipment uses to compute ETE, and general aviation aircraft typically lack the performance to be able to “catch-up” should they get pushed behind by winds or by diverting around weather. Lastly, RTCA/DO-236B 2.5 Note 2 states “The expectations are that theairborne system and pilot have information whose fidelity for data such as winds, and flight path will result in the requirement being satisfied.” And RTCA/DO-236B 3.5.1 states “Once TOAC is engaged, it shall provide for speed tracking consistent with the accuracy required in meeting the RTA, and shall not exceed speed constraints, aircraft performance limits or restrictions in the flight plan including those at the RTA point.” Both of these expectations imply a level of navigation functionality integrated with air data and aircraft performance functionality that is not currently available in the E/TSO-C146 equipment installed on many business and general aviation aircraft (E/TSOC146 equipment do not provide the ability to enter winds into


- 169 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


the flight plan either manually or via data link and also are not integrated with or cognizant of the aircraft performance capabilities); consequently, E/TSO-C146 equipment lacks the foundational FMS capabilities that are required forRTA/TOAC regardless of whether an autopilot, auto-throttle, speed target display, or data link are required. Given these significant issues, with the possible exception of the air transport fleet, it is not practical to mandate the ability to meet a single time constraint. Terminal Required Aircraft Functionalities • Advanced RNP (1 NM TSE) – As noted in Garmin’s comment on Section 2.2, the “ICAO Doc 9613–AN937 – Performance-based Navigation (PBN) Manual, Advanced Fourth Edition (unedited), 2012” which is assumed to provide the complete specification for the performance requirements, required navigation functionalities, approval process and aircraft requirements associated with “Advanced RNP (1 NM TSE)” is not publicly available. Consequently, it is impossible for Garmin to assess the entire set of capabilities that are actually required by Advanced RNP. • RF – A significant number of general aviation aircraft, both Part 23 and Part 25, are being equipped with E/TSO-C146 equipment due to the benefits of APV and LNAV final approach. RF is an optional capability for E/TSO-C146 (see RTCA/DO-229D 2.2.1.3.3). Additionally, while RF is currently required for TSO-C115c (see


- 170 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


RTCA/DO-238A 2.2.2.1), it was not required for previous multisensor FMS equipment. Furthermore, RTCA SC-227 Change Proposal M1- 12b may drive changes to the RF equipment requirements that will be included in RTCA/DO-283B, which may not be completed until March 2014. Consequently, while the current E/TSO-C146 RF requirements are harmonized with the current TSO-C115c RF requirements, there is no guarantee that this will remain the case. Lastly, current FAA installation and operational approval guidance requires an aircraft to be equipped with flight director (FD) or roll-steering autopilot (AP) capability for RF legs. The RF leg FD/AP capabilities are burdensome to a significant portion of the GA fleet dueto lack of FD/AP equipage in many aircraft and certification overhead to ensure compatibility between each combination of navigation and flight guidance equipment for aircraft that have FD/AP equipage. • VNAV – A significant number of general aviation aircraft, both Part 23 and Part 25, are being equipped with E/TSO-C146 equipment due to the benefits of APV and LNAV final approach. E/TSO-C146 has no requirements to support baro VNAV vertical constraints or to provide vertical guidance on SIDs (climb) and STARs (descent) (RTCA/DO-229D). Although TSO-C115c has defined requirements (RTCA/DO-238A Appendix H), these requirements areoptional. Consequently, while VNAV functionality has been available in


- 171 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


modern air transport jet and high-end Part 25 business jet FMS for years, the VNAV functionality is not based on harmonized requirements whose purpose is to improve traffic management and efficiency. RTCA SC-227 Change Proposals M1-2b and M1-2c may drive changes to the VNAV equipment requirements that will be included in RTCA/DO-283B, which may not be completed until March 2014. Additionally, while the draft PBN IR Annex E Figure 3 equipage survey results indicate that VNAV functionality exists in 90% of the surveyed fleet, this result is inconsistent with the FAA CY 2010 General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey results, which indicates only 6% +/- 10% of its surveyed fleet has terminal/en route baro VNAV capability (see http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/CY2010/media/201 0_GA_Survey_Chapter8_Avionics_22DEC2011V1.xls, sheet AV.26, Terminal En RTE Baro- VNAV column). Consequently, it is unclear from Annex E whether the survey included business and general aviation aircraft or whether the survey was based solely on air transport aircraft. Furthermore, the draft PBN IR Annex E Figure 5 retrofit cost does not specify what manner of retrofit equipment will be required to provide terminal VNAV capability for any aircraft category let alone what manner of retrofit equipment will be required to provide terminal VNAV capability in the business and


- 172 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


general aviation fleet. For example, draft PBN IR section 5.2.1 states “SIDs and STARs with vertical constraints could be flown with coupled guidance (VNAV capability) but autopilot coupling would not be required.” Even if there is no need for autopilot coupling, this statement implies some form of FMSbased VNAV guidance is provided even though neither E/TSO-C146 nor TSO-C115c requires this capability. This VNAV guidance might require integration with a flight director or integration with a PFD to provide altitude and/or vertical speed cues. Regardless, neither VNAV functionality nor VNAV integration with other systems, such as baro setting from a PFD or pressure altitude and airspeed from a TSO-C106 air data computer, are typicallyavailable in Part 23 and low- to mid- Part 25 aircraft, particularly those with E/TSO-C146 equipment. Given these significant issues, with the exception of air transport jets andhigh-end Part 25 business jets, it is not practical to mandate terminal VNAV functionality.

261. Enclosure 1 - p35 Page 35 states in the Issues column of Table 3 Options Comparison: "The introduction of RNAV approach procedures will increase the requirements on the memory storage capacity of FMS, due to increased amount of procedures that will have to be added." What is the rationale for this statement in the Issue column?

The text seems to imply that the current FMS do no have sufficient capacity storage. It would be interesting to know if a study confirmed this issue or if the statement is related to a risk which would need further study.

A rationale for this statement would be welcome.

2.3.2.6 Accepted Some older systems have limited memory storage capacity. This is not considered a safety issue in current flight operations. Rational for the statement will be provided.



- 173 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


262. Enclosure 1 - page 12-17 Section 3

A new subsection should be added to section 3 where the cost of opportunity of taking no action would be addressed.

A new section addressing the possibility of taking no action is missing. This would represent an assessment of the cost of opportunity of introducing no improvements at all, and allowing current traffic situation to continue as it is nowadays. In our opinion section 3 is very valid though it does demonstrate the necessity of issuing the implementing rule basing the demonstration in the fact that PBN is essential. However, the case we are facing is demonstrating that, in the midterm, the implementation of PBN by means of issuing the implementing rule is a more cost-effective solution than maintaining the current situation.

To add a new subsection in section 3 where the cost of opportunity of taking no action is addressed.

2.3.2.5 Rejected The consequences of not having an implementing rule are highly uncertain. We have assumed that, without the rule, new aircraft would still be suitably PBN equipped but that no retrofit would take place. In practice, some new GA aircraft may not be equipped and some relatively new commercial aircraft may be retrofitted. Additionally, we have assumed that, without the Rule, there would be no adoption of common navigation techniques in ATM procedures, but proliferation of varying standards. The analysis avoids the problems of defining a no rule situation by concentrating on the incremental effects of the Rule relative to the no rule situation. In economic terms, the opportunity

Spain AENA


- 174 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


cost of the Rule is the value of the best alternative use of the funds if the aircraft operators and ANSPs were not to invest in PBN. Whilst each of these organisations could estimate their own opportunity cost, given their different circumstances, it would be unrealistic to try to determine an overall European opportunity cost.

263. Enclosure 1 - page 35 - Section 9.3 - table 3 (Issues)

"3 - May introduce a single point of failure due to the dependency on the GNSS system."

Rewording is suggested. The meaning of the sentence is misleading. It can be understood that may or may not introduce a single point of failure, what is partially true. A single point of failure is introduced i.e. in case of GNSS or RAIM outage, or in case of onboard single GNSS system failure (Continuity level 1). On the other hand it is not introduced when dual GNSS or multi-constellation, or multi-frequency or RNP based on conventional is available onboard (Continuity Level 2). But at last, the most stringent case should prevail, where single point of failure is introduced.

3 - A single point of failure is introduced, due to the dependency on the GNSS system.

2.3.2.6 Accepted Rewording will be introduced

Spain AENA

264. Enclosure 2 - Annex D - Page D-10

TMA P-RNAV Safety Assessment of P-RNAV Route Spacing and Aircraft Separation-Final Report 01-04-2003

There is a more recent TMA P-RNAV safety assessment - the P-RNAV Safety Assessment, FHA and PSSA v1.3 (December 2007). This is only a "proposed issue" but it nevertheless

Replace the 2003 assessment with the 2007 one, or at least, add a third row to include:

2.3.2.6 Accepted The P-RNAV safety assessment 2003 was mentioned two times because it is

Spain AESA/AENA


- 175 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


Safety Argument for Precision RNAV in Terminal Airspace 01-05-2008

considered relevant for the safety impact assessment. The 2008 Safety Argument uses as an input a previous version (v1.1) of the mentioned assessment.

EUROCONTROL (2007): "P-RNAV Safety Assessment, FHA and PSSA", December 2007, version 1.3.

dealing with En-route and TMA therefore was mentioned for completeness the conclusion for TMA were based on the more recent document Safety Argument dated 2008. Including the ref to the documents in the table would clarify that the some document was mentioned two times just for completeness. The 2007 document and the 2008 Safety Argument will be added.


D.3.2.3.2 TMA " For the TMA two types of documents were considered: the safety assessment of the P-RNAV and the GNSS outage real time simulation report. The P-RNAV safety case provided an extensive safety analysis of the introduction of the P-RNAV procedures in the Terminal airspace..."

Apparently two different terms are used for the same document - "safety assessment" and "safety case". There are significant differences between a safety assessment and a safety case. Additionally no P-RNAV "safety case" document was mentioned in previous sections. It remains unclear to which P-RNAV document reference is being made.

"The P-RNAV safety assessment (or argument) provided an extensive safety analysis of the introduction of the P-RNAV procedures in the Terminal airspace..."


Spain AESA/AENA


D.3.2.3.3 Final Approach "An important element that should be highlighted is that no safety material is available for the LNAV".

This is a critical issue since the safety assessment for LNAV is also relevant for the horizontal component of APV Baro and also for LPV.

2.3.2.6 Noted None. Spain AESA/AENA


- 176 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



D.4.2.3 Final Approach Operations "Another safety issue may rise from the missed approach procedure coding, if this is coded as part of the LNAV procedure the GNSS failure will make the go-around procedure unavailable. Therefore non-GNSS missed approach procedure should be required to be used in case of GNSS total failure."

This statement does not reflect the status of current RNP APCH implementation in ECAC, in which a significant quantity of LNAV procedures has been published with GNSS-only missed approach segments. On the other hand, the GNSS failure will make not only the go-around, but the whole RNPAPCH procedure unavailable. Moreover, a non-GNSS missed approach results typically in higher approach minima. Furthermore, according to ICAO Doc. 8168 (Vol. 1, section 6.1.2), just a single missed approach procedure (either based on GNSS or on conventional navaids) is established for each instrument approach procedure. Although the missed approach segment may be based upon GNSS or conventional NAVAID (e.g. VOR, DME, NDB) (ref. PBN Manual, Volume II, A.5.2.1.2; B.5.2.1.2), the most effective approach for implementing PBN is that RNP APCH procedures are based on GNSS, including the missed approach, (unless a conventional missed approach is duly justified). In addition, operators should develop contingency procedure for the loss of the RNPAPCH capability during the approach (AMCs 20-27/20-28 and PBN Manual Volume II, B.5.3.4.7 Contingency procedures), and the ANSP should provide non-RNPAPCH procedure (conventional back-up procedure) at destination or alternate.

Suggest removing the sentence: "Therefore non-GNSS missed approach procedure should be required to be used in case of GNSS total failure". Further study should be dedicated to the role of operator contingency procedures (as defined in EASA AMC 20-27 and AMC 20-28) as mitigation means for GNSS total failure. In particular, it is suggested to evaluate the need for a common European contingency procedure design guidance material for operators. On the other hand, common criteria for missed approach implementation should be developed for European ANSPs.

2.3.2.6 Noted The point will be a subject for further assessment during the drafting of the rule and the extended impact assessment.

Spain AESA/AENA


- 177 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



D.4.2.3 Final Approach Operations "The introduction of APV procedures based on Baro VNAV or SBAS will allow stabilised final approaches with a continuous vertical profile defined in the procedure. In addition those procedures might increase accessibility to airports where NPA procedures do currently not exist or are constrained due to the specific location of ground-based NAVAIDS.

"NPA procedures" includes LNAV based on GNSS signal which are not constrained due to the specific location of ground-based NAVAIDS.

"...where conventional (non-GNSS) NPA procedures do currently not exist or are constrained due to the specific location of ground-based NAVAIDS. Moreover, APV procedures might also increase accessibility to runway-ends where only an LNAV procedure is available."


Spain AESA/AENA


D.4.2.3 Final Approach Operations "In case of APV procedures supported by APV-SBAS, ionospheric storms may degrade the precision of the system."

An ionospheric storm may degrade the GPS signal, so GPS NPA and APV-Baro approaches are affected too. In addition, SBAS provides iono corrections so in fact it might mitigate the effects of iono storms to some extent.

"In case of procedures based on GNSS, ionospheric storms may degrade the precision of the signal."


Spain AESA/AENA


D4.2.3 Final Approach Operations "In addition to the safety hazards linked with LNAV and the increase of the dependency on the onboard navigation database, it should be noted that the dependency on GNSS may create a single point of failure".

That is the reason for maintaining a rationalised network of conventional ground based navaids (VOR, DME, ILS) in case airspace users need to revert from GNSS in the event of a GNSS outage using conventional procedures. It is to be noted that Eurocontrol's APV Baro safety assessment (FHA Table, PF.8, page 10/49) highlights the need for an ANS-wide GNSS safety assessment. We do not know of any such effort being performed at European level.

It is suggested to assess whether a generic ANS-wide GNSS safety assessment needs to be performed at European scale. Such an activity would have to be led by Eurocontrol.

2.3.2.6 Accepted This point will be subject to assessment during the drafting of the rule and the extended impact assessment.

Spain AESA/AENA


- 178 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


271. Enclosure 2 - Annex E - Page E-6

E.2.9 Business Continuity "To ensure business continuity in the event of a wide area satellite failure, two alternatives have been suggested: multiple satellite constellations (multi-constellation) or the continued operation of the DME network."

The European policy to ensure business continuity should be coherent with the US plan developed in the frame of NextGen, Ref. Proposed Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN). Federal Aviation Administration, 14 CFR Parts 91, 131, 125, 129 and 135.Federal Register /Vol.76, No. 241/Thursday, December 15, 2011/Proposed Rules.The FAA plans to retain an optimised network of DME stations and a minimum operational network (MON) of VOR stations to ensure safety and continuous operations for high and low altitude en route airspace and terminal operations at the Core 30 airports. In addition, a network if existing ILS would be sustained to provide alternative approach and landing capabilities to continue recovery and dispatch of aircraft during GPS outage. The FAA is also conducting research an Alternate Positioning, Navigation and timing (APNT) solutions that would enable further reduction of VORs below MON. Section E.2.9 refers to two alternatives a) multi-constellation, and b) continued operation of the DME network. However, a) is not immune to interference in the L band, and b) does not meet On-Board Performance Monitoring and Alerting (OBPMA) requirements to support RNP navigation specs.

2.3.2.9 Accepted Corresponding guidance will be added at a level of detail appropriate to the IR (high level principles only, with more detailed developments & support as part of lower level provisions).

Spain AESA/AENA


- 179 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


272. Enclosure 2 - Annex E - Page E-7

E3.1.1 ANSP Costs "Adaptation of ATC supporting tools may be needed but this is not expected to involve incremental costs for the ANSPs."

No reference to this important assumption on the main document. Anyway it is not considered a valid assumption as the implementation of tools to support TPO or RTA may not be already foreseen in the development of the ATCS or even be compatible with the current system.

Include this assumption in the main document and develop it further.

2.3.2.5 Accepted The matter will be subject to further analysis during the drafting of the rule and the extended RIA.

Spain AESA/AENA

273. Executive Summary

The Do Nothing Option is discarded but should be retained as a valid option for consideration in the RA.

In C3.3.3.1, the Do Nothing option implies that without a Regulatory Approach, no PBN implementations within Europe will take place. However States have plans in place to implement PBN and therefore it should be considered as a potential option in recognition of that fact.

N/A Rejected A ''Do-nothing'' scenario refers to the introduction of legislation. It does not mean ''do-nothing'' in terms of PBN implementation actions at State level. The objectives of the rule are to harmonise the navigation performance requirements and to synchronise the effort of all stakeholders across the EATMN to achieve benefits at network level.

United Kingdom NATS

274. Executive Summary - Page 3

"The rule shall specifically address the implementation of ICAO Assembly Resolution A37-11" It must be emphasized that States worldwide have committed to ICAO Resolution 37-11 to provide RNP APCH procedures at all runway ends by the end of 2016. All three options in the Draft in the PBN IR require availability of RNP APCH procedures by 2020, which is contradictory to the global agreement and is not acceptable.

In fact the EC is formally endorsing and promoting a delay of 4 years in the implementation of RNP APCH procedures, which procedures are of utmost importance to AOs for operational safety reasons. These new procedures will replace Non Precision and circling approaches, which are known to have a safety risk. Most of the Airline Association member airlines have aircraft with on board avionics that actually are able

Replace the date of 2020 for RNP APCH into 2016 in conformity with ICAO resolution A37-11 and insist on the 2016 compliance date

2.3.2.3 Rejected The 2016 target is not achievable in all Europe. We have to be realistic

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 180 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


to perform the RNP APCH procedures, so there is also no economical reason to uphold the implementation of RNP APCH procedures.


"This approach would allow the introduction of new functionalities based on harmonized criteria and as such is considered to be the most appropriate option (Option 2) to take forward as a basis for the development of the draft IR It is stated that Option 2 ALLOWS the introduction of new functionalities. It does NOT say that Option 2 WILL introduce new functionalities. It is supposed that new functionalities are mainly to be fitted in aircraft, like RF, FRT etcBut nothing is mentioned to be required on the ground. If the safety case considered the hazards inherent in multiple parallel routes (GNSS failure/jamming) when using a single RNAV system and a single GNSS frequency presumably Option 2 will require dual RNAV & dual frequency GNSS - the cost of this needs to be carefully reviewed.

The text suggests that promises are made for introduction of functionalities. But such functionalities are not required by or for the ground side. In this way no benefits for the airlines can be expected if new functionalities are not required to be introduced on the ground. It is not clear in the RAD which on board GNSS infrastructure is required.

New functionalities on the ground must be named in harmony with the aircraft side, their benefits and impact must be made sufficiently clear for AOs for all phases of flight As it has an severe impact on costs the RAD must be clear which on board GNSS infrastructure is proposed and the reasons should be clearly stated.

2.3.2.2 Accepted The text should be modified to clarify that new capabilities in the aircraft will enable improved procedures to be operated by the ANSPs. The text of the RAD des not ntend to give promises; potential actions by the ANSPs are identified. These will be subject to further review and analysis, and based on that, it is foreseen to express them in the form of legal obligations in the implementing rule. The necessary clarifications will be provided.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 181 -



Change/Text

Ref § No



"Option 3 is insufficiently developed to form the basis of a legal requirement at this stage". The statement is rather strange as it says that the option is in-mature for selection and therefore in fact has become a non-option. The main issue is that Option 3 will only bring benefits in core Europe - FRT will not be used in the free route airspace and there is no indication that any other State in any other region is even contemplating the implementation of FRT. It seems unreasonable to require carriers to equip specially for one small part of the global airspace. It is also not clear what operational concept is envisaged using FRT and TPO. What radius will be used, will it apply to specific waypoints only, how will it be charted.

Option 3 is not a real option due to the non-availability of data on which a well thought choice can be made. Option 3 seems to be so poorly specified - there is no operational concept, there is no navigation specification, there is no clear industry standard - that it should not have been included at all. Much of what is proposed is still in R&D as part of the SESAR activities. It seems extremely unlikely that ANSPs will have the necessary facilities in place to take advantage of any of the Option 3 functionality before 2025/2030.


Option 3 is aimed at enabling the introduction of the SESAR target concept - Steps 1 through 3. Aircraft capability to meet a single time constraint both in en-route and terminal airspace is foreseen in Step 1 ''Time-based operations'' of the European ATM Master Plan, Edition 2. This capability is seen as crucial for achieving one of the 6 SESAR Key Features - Traffic Synchronisation, based on the Essential Operational Changes ''i4D+CTA'' in TMA and ''Enhanced Decision Support Tools & Performance Based Nav''. The requirement to consider the RTA functionality is part of the EC mandate and the ICB recommendation at the start of the mandate development process. The navigation

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 182 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


specification foreseen is Advanced RNP. The industry standard is EUROCAE ED-75B/RTCA DO-236B. Performance requirements do exist in the above-mentioned standards, however work is currently ongoing on revision/update of these document. It is accepted that it is unlikely that ANSPs will be able to put in place all necessary facilities to take advantage of some of the Option 3 functionalities by 2025.


Option 3 enables new concept of operations "The increased predictability in the traffic flow will also enable the optimization of the arrival sequence in the TMA environment. Enhanced sequencing will enable a reduction in regulation and the consequential delays" It is rather doubtful that Option 3 on its own will improve the arrival sequence in the TMA and consequently would lead to a reduction in delays. To achieve these benefits it will be necessary for ATC to invest in additional ATC tools, like AMAN, DMAN and SMAN

Alignment must be sought with similar enhancements in the departure sequence and ground movements.

Recognize and mention supporting ATC tools that are needed to deliver benefits


Belgium IATA/AEA


- 183 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


278. F.2 last para Page F-2

The requirement should be phrased in a more binding manner.

When considering military aircraft integration issues, there should be no room for alternate options. If certain types of State aircraft will not be capable of reaching PBN compliance their integration must nevertheless be assured.

Change last sentence on pg F-2 as follows: "Some State aircraft will never be PBN compliant thus airspace design shall pay due regard to mixed mode environment."

2.3.2.7 Accepted To be considered during the drafting of the IR.

Germany AFSBw

279. General Germany supports the need for a harmonisation of European PBN developments, including appropriate guidance material to face global PBN standards in Europe's congested airspace. The development of a PBN IR must be in line with ICAO documentation (including ICAO phraseology) as well as coordinated with the drafting process of necessary guidance material y EASA (and/or EUROCONTROL). As PBN is a very complex topic impacting all civil and military stakeholders, Germany recommends a close collaboration between EUROCONTROL and EASA to develop a full size picture of PBN implementation guidance material.

2.3.2.1 Accepted Close coordination and cooperation with EASA is maintained during the development of the implementing rule. Cooperation is also foreseen for the development of all necessary PBN implementation guidance material. Coordination with ICAO is ensured.

Germany Ministry of Transport

280. General The Regulatory Approach would appear to fit with the requirements of the ICAO Aviation System Block Upgrades (ASBU) programme although traceability appears to be missing.

Observation. In developing the PBN IR, reference should be made to all ICAO drivers e.g., Assembly Resolution A37-11 and the relevant ASBUs.

2.3.2.1 Accepted Appropriate reference will be made. Traceability will be ensured.

United Kingdom CAA

281. General The CAA has a concern that there may be difficulty in achieving implementation and lack of commitment by any of the stakeholders e.g., aircraft operators, ANSPs and member States will impede any of the chosen options. Any stakeholder dragging their feet has the potential to stop the implementation, especially in the en-route flight phase.

Observation. EUROCONTROL are invited to take note.

2.3.2.3 Noted None. United Kingdom CAA

282. General No consideration of how Minimum Equipment List (MEL) arrangements will work.

The supporting material to the Implementing Rule, including the aircraft Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) will need to address the MEL aspects.

Consider MEL aspects when developing the material supporting the Implementing Rule.

2.3.2.5 Accepted Consideration to MEL aspects will be given.

United Kingdom CAA


- 184 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


283. General The proposed option 2 appears conclusive and acceptable.

Balance costs against benefits seems to be the most appropriate solution.

N/A Noted None. Germany German NSA

284. General The application of PBN to the current areas of En-route and Terminal appears neatly scoped but in the predicted timescales for the implementation of the PBN IR, SESAR airspace concepts such as true Free Route airspace, Transition Airspace and Systemised Airspace (TMA) will have evolved and may have been implemented in some areas.

Without addressing future Airspace concepts, it is not clear how the current planned implementations can be easily transposed.

The IR must address how the proposed PBN implementation would be adaptable to changes in how airspace is categorised and utilised, taking account planned timescales for implementation and the applicable separation standards that may exist at that time.

2.3.2.3 Accepted It is intended that the PBN IR be adaptable to introduction of new technologies and concepts of operations. Proper considerations to future airspace concepts will be given when developing the rule and the associated justification material.

United Kingdom NATS

285. General We agree with option 3 with changing milestones set forth below

2.3.2.3 Noted None. Portugal NAV Portugal

286. General Comment Performance Scheme Targets This document should specify the expected performance targets to be delivered by each option. The impact of each scenario on the ATM capacity, efficiency, aircraft noise and emissions should be quantified. Development & Deployment SynchronizationThe draft IR should address ground-ground and air-ground synchronization to ensure coordinated and synchronized development and deployment between ANSPs and between ground and airborne constituents. The introduction of common set of airborne navigation capabilities should be decided together with synchronized improvements of airspace structure for the deployment of PBN routes and procedures

Need for clarification. 2.3.2.3 Noted The Performance Scheme is intended to encourage stakeholders to work towards targets. Targets will not be achieved simply by introducing PBN.

France AIRBUS


- 185 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


287. General Comment Recommend the regulatory approach and associated guidance materials concerning operational approvals for Advanced-RNP account for alternative approaches to implementation by other States/regions. Specifically, in order for European operators to operate on Advanced-RNP procedures with scalable accuracies outside of Europe, the home State National Aviation Authority (NAA) will need to specify whether the operator is approved to conduct such operations. Consideration for other optional types of operations/applications and functionalities not invoked for European implementation should likewise be addressed.

The navigation specification for Advanced-RNP provides for some flexibility regarding performance and functionalities to be implemented by a State. However, State-to-State reciprocity issues concerning operational approvals should also be considered.

2.3.2.1 Level of scalability will be subject to further analysis during the drafting of the rule and the extended RIA.

United States FAA

288. General Comment Commercial Air Traffic (CAT) is unlikely to need SBAS; therefore, the approaches need all to have RNP APCH Baro VNAV capability too

2.3.2.2 Rejected The appropriate approach will depend on the population of aircraft operating to an airfield. If an airfield only serves GA and Business aviation all the users might be LPV capable and nobody Baro/VNAV capable.

Belgium IATA/AEA

289. General Comment There is considerable duplication of text between the various parts of the document and in that duplication there are inconsistencies for example: a. VNAV is required for Option 1 but it is not clear whether this is just for CDO/CCO on SIDs & STARs or whether it is also for approach. b. In one part ANSPs seem to be providing Baro VNAV approaches whereas in other parts the discussion focuses on LNAV only.

Clarify confusion and avoid inconsistencies

Clarify the requirement of VNAV to be used in the TMA and in the Approach. Clarify the use of BaroVNAV in the Approach (VNAV/LBAV) and ensure it is not only LNAV

2.3.2.5 Accepted Clarification will be provided.

Belgium IATA/AEA


- 186 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


290. General Comment ANSPs need to embrace the new avionic technology; the status quo is not an option

2.3.2.5 Noted The objective of the rule is to ensure that the PBN routes and procedures are introduced to achieve benefits of the onboard navigation capabilities.

Belgium IATA/AEA

291. General Comment - Option 2

This option could clearly provide benefits within core Europe once it has been deployed. Confirm refit cost.

Is it just a matter of a software upgrade or are there wider implications and what have the manufacturers indicated?

2.3.2.5 Noted Software upgrade was an assumption for those aircraft that already have RF capability as existing flight guidance modes can be applied. The matter will be subject to further analysis during the extended RIA.

Belgium IATA/AEA

292. Main - 3.1.1.4 The concept of free route airspace is that the aircraft does not follow a published route. The problem with the application of PBN in this type of airspace is that the navigation specification has to be associated with an ATS route (SID/STAR/Airway) in the FMS database. For free route or DCT airspace, as there is no Airway Record in the database there is an issue with ensuring the required lateral track keeping accuracy. This raises many questions for airspace planners and ATM procedure designers which have yet to be resolved.

If free route airspace is stated as a key driver for improved navigation performance then the use of PBN specifications as proposed in the Options needs to be tested for applicability within this type of airspace.

Clarification is requested on the technical interoperability between free routes/DCT routes and the navigation specification ascribed against these routes.

2.3.2.5 Accepted Those aspects need to be further assessed. Technical and operational means need to be in place to support such operations.

United Kingdom NATS


- 187 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


293. Main - 3.2.1 It is stated that the SES IR would help maximise the number of State Aircraft capable of demonstrating compliance with the PBN requirements but EASA rulemaking does not apply to military aircraft.

The Essential Requirements call for civil/military co-ordination but where avionics changes are required by military aircraft, the actual changes are expected to be minimal. It not clear from the text how military compliance through 'co-ordination' will be achieved because in practice Military navigation capability is nearly always driven by operational need and consequent procurement programmes.

The extended RIA for the option chosen should describe a framework for how this co-ordination will take place and detail the processes to be followed to demonstrate compliance. This may include arrangements for State aircraft to demonstrate compliance through Military regulatory approvals as distinct from civil approvals. These robust processes will give ANSPs confidence that State exemptions will be limited and of a specific duration.

2.3.2.7 Noted Those processes for equivalent certification are to be determined at national level.

United Kingdom NATS

294. Main - 5.2.1 - Para 2 and Table 1

The extent of modifications to the Fixed ATS route network to utilise A-RNP specifications is not clear.

The legislation needs to recognise that changes to airspace and the utilisation of PBN capabilities must be as a consequence of where benefits to the EATMN are clearly identified. In some remoter en-route airspace there would be no benefit from re-designating ATS routes to A-RNP if there are no other proximate routes or if the routes are already very ATM efficient in terms of route length. The need for reduced spacing "where required" is acknowledged in Annex A, A.3.1. There should not be a presumption that implementation everywhere is the default position but the current En-route Options in Table 1 can be interpreted as requiring implementations in all En-route airspace.

Within the IR, future statements on applicability within en-route airspace should be amended to "For en-route operations, where identified as contributing to the improvement of the EATMN performance, parts of the ATS fixed route network could be modified in order to reduce the spacing to the minimum achievable distance to achieve flight efficiency and capacity benefits. Within the IR, future statements on A-RNP applicability within en-route airspace should


United Kingdom NATS


- 188 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


contain 'where required' e.g. able 1 Options 1, 2 & 3. "En-route Advanced RNP (where required)."

295. Main - 5.2.1 - Para 5 & 6

For both RNAV holding and VNAV the paragraphs describe capabilities but constrain them with a requirement that they are not coupled to the autopilot.

Clarification is requested on what this constraint means for airspace designers when these capabilities are not coupled to the autopilot. Is autopilot coupling envisaged in the future and what difference will it make?

2.3.2.5 Accepted VNAV in arrivals is not supposed to be coupled. What is meant here are altitude constraints.

United Kingdom NATS

296. Main - 5.2.4 - Table 2 - Phase 1

ANSP stakeholder actions should not include the responsibility for Airports. Requirements on Airports should be placed separately from ANSPs.

The RAD assumes that all ANSPs have jurisdiction over airport procedures but this is not the case in the UK and possibly other EU states. The regulatory structure in the UK is such that each aerodrome authority owns its instrument flight procedures and is responsible for among other things, contracting procedure design and airspace design organisations for maintaining them or designing new ones. The Regulation should provide clarity that the authority that is normally responsible for maintenance and creation of instrument flight procedures is the entity responsible for implementation of Airport PBN procedures.

Detail Airport stakeholder actions separately from ANSP actions

2.3.2.5 Accepted ANSPs and airports are different entities and have different responsibilities. Obligations foreseen in the context of PBN should be therefore assessed and should be aimed at the right addressee. This is linked to comment 123 above.

United Kingdom NATS


- 189 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


297. Main - 6.2.3 Need for effective transition arrangements for State aircraft is pragmatic but there will need to robust commitment from military authorities to achieve timetables.

State aircraft Mode S equipage timescales, as agreed on a European wide basis at the early part of the last decade, did not take place as expected due to the reasons similar to those in 6.2.3. These same situations are now being cited as the reason for the need for a transition period.

Request assurance from the Regulation that the implementation of PBN in re-designed airspace to meet EU performance targets is not compromised by the need to accommodate mixed mode operations for any appreciable length of time, as a consequence of inadequate arrangements for military performance compliance.

2.3.2.7 Accepted It will be considered during the IR drafting in a balanced way.

United Kingdom NATS

298. Main - 6.2.5 It is not certain whether it would be practical, feasible or cost effective to implement PBN across the whole of the EATMN

PBN implementations by ANPSs will have a cost and therefore ANSPs will need to justify investments which positively contribute to the EATMN and the benefits for users will clear to all. For remoter parts of en-route airspace or for airports with few weather, terrain or system outage issues, the business case for PBN may not be robust enough and users may not see any improvements that justify their investments.

The Impact Assessment for the IR should require PBN implementations to the maximum extent possible but not make a proposal for universal applicability as this could place unnecessary risks on acceptance of the rulemaking as a whole.


United Kingdom NATS

299. Main - 6.2.6 It is stated that early equipage will be encouraged through the use of financial incentives. This is perceived to be for airborne equipage but it does not address incentives for small airports

Small airports have limited financial resources and the business case to implement PBN approaches would be difficult to justify. However it is the smaller airports with minimal ground infrastructure where this operational capability would be of most benefit.

The incentive scheme should be extended to include airports where, although the business case may not add up, there would still be sufficient justification on operational grounds to warrant implementation.

2.3.2.5 Noted Firstly, it should be noted that financial incentives are presented as a possibility and that, at this stage, no decision has been made to implement incentives to support the Rule. Secondly, because the Rule will

United Kingdom NATS


- 190 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


represent a legal requirement, financial incentives are not offered as an incentive to comply with the Rule but to go beyond its scope, i.e. to implement more quickly. Thirdly, financial incentives are seen as being appropriate to commercial organisations but not to state owned bodies. In the case of airports, the immediate impact of the Rule will be on the costs of the organisation providing ATM at the airport. This could be the national ANSP, a commercial contractor or the airport owner itself. The airport ANSP will be required to utilise PBN capabilities where these will lead to enhanced traffic flow at the airport but will not be required to implement unnecessary measures. Thus the case for


- 191 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


offering financial incentives to airports is far from clear.

300. Main - 9.4 It is erroneous to state that an increase in capacity from advanced navigation will result in the need for fewer ATCOs overall and therefore lower ANSP operating costs.

ATCO numbers are determined by requirements in many functional areas and even though sector capacities many increase, it does not follow that controllers will not be required in other areas. There is a danger that a perceived consequence will in theory have an overall positive economic effect but which may not be realised in practice. It is noted that the Controller productivity savings are declared as the largest benefit claimed in the CBA although there are no identified costs for these tools, presumably as they are already in development in the timescale considered within the CBA by other Projects, SESAR, iTEC, etc.

The economic assessment as part of extended RIA should provide a more robust assessment in this area, if this is possible. If it is not possible then it should not be used as a supporting argument for legislation. Also we would recommend confirmation that there is not multiple accounting of increased Controller efficiencies across multiple projects in other domains.

2.3.2.5 Rejected Simulations indicated that the introduction of advanced PBN capabilities would lead to increased controller productivity. This will enable controllers to handle more traffic and thus the growth in controller numbers, required to handle the anticipated growth in traffic, will be lower than it would otherwise be. It will not, however, enable an absolute reduction in controller numbers. Estimates of the required numbers of controllers are incremental to the ANSP plans presented in the Network Operation Plan and the

United Kingdom NATS


- 192 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


productivity gains which are enabled by datalink.

301. Main - 9.4 There is no acknowledgement of the airspace re-design costs as a result of PBN implementations en-route, or where there are consequent changes to aircraft profiles or tracks over the ground and where environmental consultation has to take place.

The RAD proposes to introduce A-RNP throughout the whole of the EATMN and this will require airspace changes to affect efficiencies. As a consequence it is not just the cost of procedure design that has to be borne but the cost associated with environmental consultation and the risk to the programme that this brings. These total costs have a material effect on any business case and therefore the scope of the regulatory changes must be focussed where the total costs are justified.

The economic assessment as part of the extended RIA must address the economic impact on ANSPs from all attendant costs, not just procedure design and controller training.

2.3.2.5 Accepted The comment is correct. An estimate of en-route airspace design costs should be included.

United Kingdom NATS

302. Main - 9.4 & 9.5 The RAD states that the IR shall: . Exempt infrequent users of European airspace as the costs of including these in the equipage requirements is too high and would contribute little to the overall EATMN. . Provide provisions to allow State aircraft to access PBN airspace, and these will include transition arrangements for other types of state aircraft and fleets with lower capability. These are understood but there should be text in the same section that makes it clear to these user groups that the exemption would normally mean acceptance for their flight at non-optimal times/levels or along non-optimal profiles.

Exemption of non-equipped aircraft in an airspace where there is a homogenous fleet has a disproportionate effect on the local ATS provider and operational mitigation will invariably mean a profile which is not the users' preferred. This position must be explicit within the legislation and accepted by potentially affected users.

When addressing this issue, for non-equipped State aircraft during any agreed Transition Period, or after such period for State aircraft which will never equip, or for infrequent GAT users of European airspace, the IR should include provisions/statements to the effect that acceptance of such flights by the local ATS provider may be at non-optimal times or levels or along non-optimal profiles.


United Kingdom NATS


- 193 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


303. Main - Table 1 - Option 2

The overall requirement for TPO in the En-route phase needs to be assessed by the extended RIA for the benefits it brings to the EATMN.

TPO is essentially a tactical tool for resolving short term ATC problems. It cannot be used by airspace planners as an enabler for projected improvements and in fact planners will usually try to 'design out' the requirement for such tactical intervention e.g. unidirectional ATS routes. Further, the requirement for TPO will have an impact on ground systems which have a conformance monitoring capability, through costs associated with necessary system changes, even though the procedure may not be used tactically by the ANSP.

The IR should not place a requirement on ANPSs to implement TPO procedures. Any inclusion should be on an 'as required' basis.

2.3.2.5 Accepted The text will be modified accordingly.

United Kingdom NATS

304. Main - Table 1 Option 3

NATS does not support Option 3 as the basis for the IR.

Option 3 proposes legislation that supports trajectory based ops but as these concepts are still maturing, it is too early place navigation requirements for a 2025 timescale.

Accepted None. United Kingdom NATS

305. Main 5.2.1 - Para 2 - Table 1 Option 1

Not having FRT En-route would severely limit the extent of any ATS route re-design and this will provide little benefit to the EATMN as a whole.

Without FRT, the use of A-RNP to support closely spaced parallel routes would be limited to short straight sections of route which have no turns in them. This would not advance airspace design from what is achievable today and it would not allow airspace planners to radically re-design airspace to achieve maximum efficiencies. This is applicable both within Fixed ATS route networks, including Transition airspace, and in DCT/Free route networks where turns to accommodate activated segregated airspace may be required.

2.3.2.5 Noted A requirement for FRT, however, needs to be balanced with the economic impact on the aircraft operators, for some of which, the functionality would be prohibitively costly of physically impossible to achieve.

United Kingdom NATS


- 194 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


306. Option 1, 2 and 3 (A-RNP)

Advanced RNP is an undefined operation. As long as the A-RNP concept is not clearly defined including the concrete certification specifications, EBAA does not support A-RNP. it is essential that Europe develops a concept completely harmonised and synchronised with NextGen and other leading ATM modernisation projects around the world.

We understand that all referred capabilities might not be mature, however any reference to a required aircraft functionality must be specific and unambiguous.

Describe the specific aircraft functionalities required for each of the proposed regulatory options (RNP [range of proposed values], RF leg, etc). Note that it is interesting for business aviation to benefit from the combination of RNP1 and RF leg in terminal airspace down to the Final Approach Fix (FAF) in order to enable the publication of enhanced arrival procedure in challenging areas (due to terrain or neighbouring airports), but without the burden of additional approach specific Authorisation Requirement.

2.3.2.2 Accepted Link to the ICAO PBN manual to be provided.

Belgium EBAA

307. Option 1, 2 and 3 (Final Approach with vertical guidance)

For performance based final approaches with vertical guidance, three types of different capabilities and respective procedures exist: a) APVBaro is the capability to perform a RNP (GNSS) approach procedure down to a LNAV/VNAV minima using barometric vertical guidance (Baro-VNAV) b) APVSBAS is the capability to perform a RNP (GNSS) approach procedure down to a LNAV/VNAV minima using SBAS vertical guidance (SBAS-VNAV); and, c) LPVSBAS is the capability to perform a LPVSBAS precision approach procedure down to a LPV minima Those three different functionalities must be considered independently and clearly described in the deployment strategy.

The document either confuses APBSBAS with LPV SBAS; or does not consider the difference between points b) and c) above.

Rephrase: "For final approach operations, deployment of RNP approach procedures, Lateral Navigation (LNAV)-only and APV - either APV Baro and/or APV SBAS would be required by the end of 2020 to replace NPA or as a backup to Instrument Landing System (ILS), at all instrument runway ends" By (proposition): "For final approach operations, to replace NPA or as a backup to ILS, deployment by the

2.3.2.2 Rejected The comment is not understood. The terminology proposed is wrong. APV SBAS is always to an LPV minima. APV SBAS and LPV SBAS are the same thing. RNP(GNSS) is not the agreed ICAO terminology for any type of procedure. An SBAS approach to LPV minima is an RNAV(GNSS) approach.

Belgium EBAA


- 195 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


end of 2020 of RNP(GNSS) approach procedures down to LNAV minimum and: a) deployment of RNP(GNSS) approach procedures down to LNAV/VNAV minimum (whenever possible with the procedure being approved for Baro-VNAV and SBAS-VNAV operation); and/or, b) deployment of LPV SBAS precision approach procedure down to LPV minimum; at all instrument runway ends** ** See comment No 5 for the clarification of the notion of instrument runway ends

308. Option 1, 2 and 3 (RF leg & FRT)

EBAA supports forward and retro fit of RF leg and FRT for the benefit of improving the airspace structure.

For your information and to give you a description of the OEMs availablity (for Business Aviation) RF leg and FRT functionality is available in the latest FMS generation such as: Rockwell Collins PL21 FMS 7.0 Rockwell Collins Pro Line Fusion 4.5.5 or later garmin 3000 New Honeywell EPIC version

N/A Noted Thank you for this information.

Belgium EBAA


- 196 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


309. Option 2 and 3 What specific aircraft functionalities will be required for enabling en-route TOAC operations? List the candidate specific aircraft functionalities required (e.g. manage auto-throttle, ADS-C, specific FMS RTA function, FMS weather update).

Managed auto-throttle: Some business aviation aircraft types do not/will not propose the auto-throttle functionality. This is especially true on light and mid-size aircrafts for cost reasons. Also, this aircraft have shorter flights (between 1 and 2 hours) which make less relevant the use of auto-throttle. ADS-C: ADS-C capability is a subset of FANS 1/A equipage. This is today available in the BizAv long range aircrafts only. FMS weather update: All long range aircrafts and the majority of new avionics suites supports a weather update functionality.

Given that light and mid-size BizAv aircraft will probably not be equipped in the future with auto-throttle nor with ADS-C, we are not able to support a mandate requiring these 2 functionalities.

2.3.2.2 Accepted It is anticipated that ADS-C, weather update and autothrottle will not form part of this IR. Concerning RTA, RTCA DO-236C / EUROCAE ED-75C will require 30s RTA in cruise and 10s RTA in the TMA. It is to be further examined if these two accuracies are really needed in this IR.

Belgium EBAA

310. Options On the basis of the analysis conducted and the results of the preliminary impact assessment, Option 2 is considered to be the option that would provide the highest potential for achieving overall net benefit to the EATMN.

This approach would allow the introduction of new functionalities in the SES airspace based on harmonised criteria and as such is considered to be the most appropriate option to take forward as a basis for the development of the draft IR.

2.3.2.2 Noted None. Denmark NAVIAIR

311. Originator: Lufthansa German Airlines

The definition of the Eurocontrol Regulatory Approach document functionalities seems to not match with international standards like to ICAO PBN Manual doc. 9613. For example "advanced RNP 1" is defined as "Basic RNP 1 plus FRT, RT and RTA" in the ICAO document. The Eurocontrol document proposes advanced RNP 1, FRT, RT and RTA at different stages in different options, that is not understandable nor compliant with existing ICAO definitions. The regulatory document for the PBN IR does not define the minimum requirements the various functionalities are based on, e.g. a RTA (required time of arrival) requirement needs to include precision definition.


RTCA DO-236C / EUROCAE ED-75C will require 30s RTA in cruise and 10s RTA in the TMA. The values are not specified in the draft RAD due to fact that the revised RTCA/EUROCAE documents mentioned above are planned to be published in 2013.

Germany DFS/Lufthansa German Airlines


- 197 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


Envisioned functionalities shall be introduced in a synchronised manner, i.e. the introduction of ground and airborne part of the various functionalities shall be transparent and harmonised. E.g. RTA is required as part of advanced RNP 1 from the operator within option 1 (see § 5.2.3), while ANSPs requirement for the same is only with option 3 (see § 5.2.4). At least a pre-mature cost benefit analysis for the various functionalities is necessary but missing Forward fit and retrofit assessment including envisioned schedule is missing A serious judgement of the Eurocontrol Regulatory Approach document functionalities cannot be considered possible due to the above mentioned significant lack of information provided

Consistency with ICAO PBN Manual will be ensured. RTA is not required in Option 1 (Para 5.2.3 describes Option 3). Cost-benefit analysis is provided using all available reliable data and information. It is expected that in the future most new aircraft coming into service, with the possible exception of some general aviation aircraft, will have the capabilities proposed for inclusion in the draft IR. (See Annex E Para. E.3.2.6). Aircraft retrofit is assumed to take place gradually during the period 2016 to 2020. (See Annex E Para. E.4.1)


- 198 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


312. Page 15 - 3.2.1 - 4th paragraph - Plus Annex E - E2.8

Para 3.2.1 Identifies expected benefits from optimisation of navaid infrastructure and reduced costs, although these cost saving expectations are not factored into the CBA.

The reasons for not including navaid rationalisation costs are understood, however Annex E paragraph E_2.8 is negative and implies not to bother about navaid rationalisation. The absolute value of the cost saving may be small and variable within the high level CBA. However within the context of a lower level 'PBN Implementers CBA', the numbers are real and tangible, and importantly, the implementation cost and the expected benefits appear on the same organisations balance sheet, thereby answering the "what is in it for me" question. SESAR 15.3.2 activity shows that many airport operators only consider changing operational procedures at the end of infrastructure life, NDBs in particular.

Add text to indicate that implementers should not dismiss navaid rationalisation as being of no consequence.

2.3.2.5 Accepted Fully agree. Even if not part of the benefits case, rationalization should be encouraged in whatever way possible. Corresponding text changes will be introduced.

United Kingdom NATS

313. Page 35 - section 9.3 - Table 3 - Option 1 - Issues 1 & 2

Issues 1 identifies that the implementation of APV procedures will increase the dependence on the navigation database. Similarly: Issue 2 identifies that RNAV approach procedures will increase FMS memory storage capacity.

It is not only APV that increases the dependency on the on board data base, it is all PBN Procedures, particularly within the TMA. There are already issues relating to older FMS with 200k memory capacity having difficulty with the limited numbers of RNAV 1 instrument departures. These issues are likely to get worse as multiple PBN SIDS are prepared to allow differing aircraft capabilities, e.g. to cater for RNAV 1 or RNP1 with RF aircraft Is there an estimate of future memory requirements? Noting that in the IT world, this appears to grow exponentially.

Expand text to cover the true extent of the database and memory issue

2.3.2.6 Accepted The extended impact assessment will address this point to analyse the full extent of the issues.

United Kingdom NATS


- 199 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


314. Para 5.2.3 and 6.2.1 and Table 2. Also Annex C 3.3.4.2

Option 3 as detailed in 5.2.3 and Table 3 on Page 26 is not aligned with the analysis in section 6.2.1 6.2.1 Introduces new and undefined new concepts and future GNSS capabilities could provide further benefits… C_3.3.4.2 identifies the Stakeholder action ANSPs will be required to deploy all required elements to support trajectory based operations concept. This Statement is currently unbounded and potentially goes far beyond the navigation domain and into advanced Controller ATM tools.

The operational and technological requirements for Option 3 are too poorly defined to merit serious consideration within an Implementing Rule at this time

Delete Phase 2 as part of the Implementing Rule.

2.3.2.2 Noted Phase 2 concerns only Option 3, which is not the EUROCONTROL recommended option. If Option 3 is not the one that will be retained for the drafting of the implementing Rule, Phase 2 will become irrelevant and will not be part of the implementing Rule.

United Kingdom NATS

315. Section 2 Europe and the United States (FAA) are both developing respective strategy for PBN equipage to meet ICAO Assembly Resolution A37-11. Eurocontrol should coordinate with FAA to ensure that any equipment standards identified through a proposed equipment mandate in Europe are harmonized with equipment standards considered by the FAA for PBN deployment in the United States.

While the United States is pursuing a voluntary, performance based approach to the deployment of PBN and Europe is moving toward a mandate for PBN capability, it is impractical to develop avionics equipment that is not harmonized between the United States and Europe.

Recommendation to ensure harmonization between FAA, Eurocontrol as well as the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in the development of equipment and airworthiness standards for PBN. And, recommend identification of specific equipment standard in the draft Implementing Regulation to enable a complete review and analysis by industry.

2.3.2.1 Accepted RTCA SC-227 / EUROCAE WG-85 is developing a new MASPS which is coordinated worldwide including Eurocontrol, EASA and FAA. RTCA DO-236C / EUROCAE ED-75C will be completed in 2013.

United States GAMA


- 200 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


316. Table - Page 36 In our opinion other issues have to be accomplished. Handling VNAV also from a design perspective point of view, defining standards at ICAO level. In the approach part some issues may arise regarding phraseology and operational management, due to the different aircraft capabilities, so requiring new standard for instance in terms of charting or design.

Term VNAV on a general basis is connected to design issues and criteria. Perhaps it would be better to use CDO/CCO. Different aircraft capabilities may lead to different operational management by ATCOs who need to be aware of this possibility.

2.3.2.2 The term VNAV in the arrival phase of flight is misleading. Actually, what is meant here is altitude constraints. The text will be amended accordingly.

Italy ENAV SpA

317. Table 1 - Page 24 Better address VNAV in TMA. Somewhere inside the documents it has been expressed as the capability to fly CDO/CCO, but elsewhere as the capability to fly tubes. Since these two options have different implications in the context of airspace and procedure design, it would be better to clarify which is intended with VNAV in TMA. It would be better to replace VNAV in TMA with the term CDO/CCO at least for the time frame 2020.

VNAV in itself implies more than following a CDO/CCO profiles and it is linked also to design criteria as in instrument approach procedures.

Replace VNAV with plannable CDO/CCO operations.

2.3.2.2 Accepted The term VNAV in the arrival phase of flight is misleading. Actually, what is meant here are altitude constraints. The text will be amended accordingly.

Italy ENAV SpA

318. Various references e.g. Page 25 table 2

It is clear that all options in the IR require an ANSP to implement APV in accordance with A37-11. However, the implementation requirements for PBN in en-route and terminal airspace are not explicit. It is noted that States 'Implement minimum route spacing in the fixed ATS Route Network to meet Network Performance targets.' Is this the true requirement? If so, are the En-route and Terminal PBN implementations subject to a CBA, and if so is this on a CBA relating to the State, or the benefits to the European Network?

Comment raised to understand the expected actions and associated costs. 1) What are the Network performance targets to be achieved?2) Is this action limited to implement parallel routes within the constraints of other ATM technology, or does it necessitate the implementation of new ATM systems to support the closer route spacing to fully meet the Network Performance targets.

Clarify the extent of required PBN implementation

2.3.2.2 Accepted PBN implementation is seen as contributor to improving performance. PBN implementation is not seen as only as implementing parallel routes, but also as deployment of new ATM systems to support the closer route spacing to contribute to meeting the Network Performance targets.

United Kingdom NATS


- 201 -



Change/Text

Ref § No


319. General Whether ground should be equipped before airborne is a chicken-egg-problem: ANSPs would like to see airborne equipped before investing themselves; the same applies from the AOs point of view. However, the difference is that AOs’ aircraft are currently equipped with features which are not yet (but should be) used by the ground…

2.3.2.5 Noted None. Belgium IACA

320. General Major benefits are in TMA/approach domain. EUROCONTROL always advocated a gate-to-gate concept, but at the same time refuses to include “gates” in performance monitoring. Airspace users will continue insisting at high level that “gates” are actually included in the monitoring for the Performance Regulation. This may result in ANSPs seeing PBN as a potential enabler to achieve the ANSPs’ performance targets and consequently ANSPs would promote PBN themselves.

2.3.2.2 Noted None. Belgium IACA


- 202 -

APPENDIX 1 TO ANNEX C IATA ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL

Climb/Final Approach/Runway Climb/Final Approach/Runway ATC Ground

Facilitation for: Implementation

ATC tools (e.g. SMAN, wake vortex detection)

and associated procedures

AirborneCapability (Availability in % Eurocontrol data)

Airborne Equipage

GNSS

GNSS 81

RNP1 – 0.3( procedures parallel rwy ops, MAP)

S: 2016 R: 2018

RNP1 – 0.3 77

FF 2016 RF < 2021

APV and LNAV S: 2009

R: 2016

APV LNAV

52 66

FF 2012 RF < 2021

TMA TMA ATC Ground

Facilitation for: Implementation of ATC

tools (e.g. AMAN, DMAN, parallel approach /

departures) and associated procedures

Airborne Capability (Availability in %, Eurocontrol data)

Airborne Equipage

GNSS

GNSS 81

RNP1

S: 2016 R: 2018

RNP1 77

RF S: 2012 R: 2018

RF 44

RNAV Holding RNAV Holding

85

VNAV

S: 2016 R: 2018

VNAV 90

FF 2016 RF < 2021

RTA S: 2016 R: 2022

RTA (? s) 66 FF 2016 RF < 2025

En route En route ATC Ground

Facilitation for: Implementation of ATC tools and associated

procedures

Airborne Capability (Availability in %, Eurocontrol data)

Airborne Equipage

GNSS

GNSS 81

RNP1

S: 2016 R: 2018

RNP1 77

FF 2016 RF < 2021

FRT X

X FRT 18 FF optional

RF X TPO

TPO 75

RTA (30 s)

S: 2016 R: 2018

RTA

(30 s) 66

FF 2016 RF < 2021

S: start: R: ready

SPI IR Ground implementation ADS-B: 2018 SPI IR Airborne Retro Fit: ADS-B Out: 2021 (instead of Dec 2017)

- End of Document -

summary of responses (sor) document for the · european organisation for the safety of air...

Documents