曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

straight line, fixed terminated
transition proceeds the start of
the final.
10-11-12-13 September 2002-Morocco ARAB INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE DESIGN SEMINAR
Navigation database related issues
Compatibility...
Navigation data production process
Procedure design
by Civil Aviation Authorities
Data Supplier
FMS Database Processing
FMS
AIP
ARINC 424 “master” file
Packed Data
operator
responsibility
Some top level issues
 Navigation database process is *not* certified
 Transcription of procedures in “computer” language
(ARINC 424) requires interpretation
 Procedure designer intent is currently only published under
“pilot language” format
 Each FMS implementation & logic is different
May results in different flight paths and SOP
 Charts and aircraft navigation displays differ
 Increased risk of Human error
 Training costs
Reminder - flight plan construction
 Charted procedure are translated into a sequence of
ARINC 424 legs in the Navigation Database
 Flight plans are entered into the FMS by calling
procedures from the navigation database
 Procedure segments are chained together (or melded) to
form the FMS flight plan
Example : F-PLN procedure melding
 Procedures are chained together to form the FMS flight
plan. Example :
Arrival chart
Airways chart
Approach chart
Enroute
(airways)
STAR-enroute
transition
STAR Approach
STAR-approach
transition (VIA)
Example : procedure compatibility ?
 Possible procedure misconnects between en-route,
arrival, and approach charts
 Possible discontinuities between or inside procedures
 Incompatible or conflicting altitude requirements
between arrival and approach charts
10-11-12-13 September 2002-Morocco ARAB INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE DESIGN SEMINAR
Navigation database recommendations
Waypoint naming issues
 Different approach procedure types (ILS/LOC/RNAV…)
use different trajectories and/or waypoint names without
reason
 Unnamed waypoints on charts are assigned default names
 Same waypoint names used at different locations
 Chart wording leading to usage of leg types which cause
the FMS to create its own waypoints, with names which do
not match chart
 Coding constraints lead to creation of waypoints not on the
chart
Procedure trajectory issues
 Chart wording and/or coding rules lead to coding of
magnetic course leg types such as CF legs
 Chart wording and/or coding rules lead to bad coding of
vertical descent angles, which are critical to a correct
vertical path
 IFR minimum altitudes often coded as “AT” constraints
 Overfly waypoints trajectories are not repeatable
 Barometric temperature limitations should be indicated
on charts
 Overfly waypoints : depending on wind, aircraft speed,
bank angle limitation etc… the FMS trajectory will be
different
Why not use overfly waypoints ?
trajectory
not repeatable
overfly wpt
 Fly-by waypoints : better trajectory control is achieved
as the FMS will track a pre-computed curve
Why use fly-by waypoints ?
controlled
trajectory
fly-by wpt
 CF leg magnetic course angles may mismatch :
excessive roll
maneuvering
Why not use CF legs ?
N N
 TF legs always fit, independently of magnetic variation :
Why use TF legs ?
IDLE segment
Why code FPA constraint on each
FINAL leg ?
FPA smaller than
altitude constraint
FPA greater than
altitude constraint
No FPA
FPA matches altitude
constraint
Why not use AT altitude constraints ?
 Using AT constraints may cause undesired vertical path :
navigation database vertical angle
navigation database vertical angle
MAP
approach profile
MDA
Why use AT_OR_ABOVE altitude
constraints ?
 Using AT_OR_ABOVE constraints and FPA constraint
on each leg ensures seamless path
MDA
navigation database vertical angle
navigation database vertical angle
MAP
approach profile
Medium term - recommendations
 Implementation of DO201A by civil aviation authorities for
procedure publication
 Implementation of DO200A by data providers
 Implementation of RTCA DO236 / EUROCAE ED-75
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：航空資料1(83)