349
1 INTRODUCTION
AccordingtoEurocontrolandEASAguidance,there
has been developed a documentʺEGNOS Poland
Market Analysisʺ. It includes research findings
concerning analysis of preparing airports and
operators(aeroplanesandhelicopters)foroperational
use of EGNOS system. There were first in Poland
examinations, conducted by PANSA (Polish Air
NavigationServicesAgency),whichtheytooktothe
implementationofLPVGNSSproceduresonairports,
guarantee safety and high quality of the service.
Furthermore, these research was consistent with the
expectations of aircraft operators and user of the
EGNOS andwasconducted inrelation tosigned by
Poland ICAO Resolution
A‐36/37 concerning the
Implementation of PBN (Performance Based
Navigation).
Each European ANSP (Air Navigation Services
Provider) shall perform a review of airports where
LPV approaches would represent a quality
improvement in terms of airport accessibility and
operation safety. These are the main activities
regardingSurveyofcandidateairports.
Furthermore, new
test shall be carried out with
aircraftoperators,whichareinterestedinofEGNOS
system. Priority might be given to those operators
with presence in the candidate airport. The
assessment of some tangible criteria will allow the
best selection after the complete process. This will
covertheresearchofaircraft
operatorsobjectives.
Theactivitieswillbebasedonacommonapproach
methodology to be followed by the participating
ANSPs in SHERPA when assessing the different
feasible scenarios: scenario = airport + aircraft
operator.Thearticlecontainsthefollowingsections:
description of the proposed implementation
methodology
briefsummaryofthe
descriptionofwork
mainconclusionsaftertheanalysis.
Guidance for the preparation of EGNOS National
Market Analysis
A.Fellner
SilesianUniversityofTechnology,Katowice,Poland
ABSTRACT:Theobjectiveofthisarticleistoprovidesomeguidancetoperformtheactivitiesregardingto“The
EGNOS country market analysis”. Such analyses are necessary during the implementation of EGONS for
operationalactivity.Thepresentedalgorithmofproceedingswasvalidatedduringconductedexaminations,of
aviationtestsintheframeworkoftheSHERPAproject(Supportad‐HoctoEasternRegionwithPre‐operational
ActionsonGNSS)undertheAgreementGrantNo.287246withtheGSA(EuropeanGNSSAgency).Nextitwas
admittedastheEuropeanmodelofconductinganalysesofthistypeinaviation.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 12
Number 2
June 2018
DOI:10.12716/1001.12.02.16
350
2 METHODOLOGY
Theproposedcommonmethodologyfortheairports
andaircraftoperatorselection(namely“scenarios”)is
arationalandsimple3‐phasesprocess(Fig.1):
‐ Identification and description of potentia l
scenariocandidates(airports).
‐ Selectionofcriteriatargetingacleardefinitionof
the criteria used to assess each
of the potential
scenariosidentified,basedonthecriteriaproposed
in this document or including any additional
aspect under ANSP consideration for the final
scenarioselection.
‐ Assessment based on the selected list
parameters/criteria. Each potential scenario shall
be assessed justifying the selection of the bestor
most beneficial “final
scenario” in which LPV
procedureswerepublished.
Duringtheassessmentofthedifferent“scenarios”
followingtheproposedmethodology,theANSPswill
be able to evaluate the implications and benefits
derivedfromtheimplementationofLPVprocedures
ineachofthemsuchasminimareduction,increased
accessibility,continuoushorizontal/verticalguidance,
noise
and emissions reduction, etc. This evaluation
process will be the basis for the justification of the
finalselectedscenario.
These activities must be performed in close co‐
operation with all the stakeholders such as Aircraft
Operators,ANSPs,RegulatorsandAirports.
Duringtheassessmentofthedifferent“scenarios”
following the proposed methodology,
the PANSA
willbeabletoevaluatetheimplicationsandbenefits
derivedfromtheimplementationofLPVprocedures
ineachofthemsuchasminimareduction,increased
accessibility, continuous horizontal or/and vertical
guidance, noise and emissions reduction, etc. This
evaluation process will be the basis for the
justification of the
final selected scenario. These
activities also must be performed in close co‐
operation with all the stakeholders such as Aircraft
Operators,PANSA,RegulatorsandAirports.
Figure1.Methodology’sphases
3 PHASE1‐IDENTIFICATION
Identification as one of the main objectives of
SHERPA project is to support Eastern European
countries through the set up of a regional working
groupandtounderstandtheactionstobeundertaken
by their relevant stakeholders (ANSPs, Regulators
and Aircraft Operators) in support to EGNOS
adoption,
thefirststepintheprocessisidentification
of some State airports and aircraft operators where
LPV approaches implementation and its later
operationwillrepresenttangiblebenefits.
They assumed that PANSA should generate the
listofpotentialcandidatesofthescript(airportsand
operatorsoftheplane)tobesubsequently
assessed.In
principle, pairs of aircraft operators and airports
where the first ones operate in would be the
preference.Theidentificationofcandidatesshouldbe
donetakingintoaccountorganizational,technicaland
institutionalrequirementssimilar,butnotlimitedto,
thefollowingones:
Nationalstrategicobjectives,
Aircraftoperatorrequests,
PBNimplementationplansandairspaceconcept,
ATMoperationalrequirements,
Environmentalpolicydirectives.
AspartoftheSHERPAproject,aPolishNational
ImplementationTeamwasestablished.
Figure2.NationalImplementationTeam
3.1 Airports
EachANSPshallidentifyandanalysewhich arethe
most suitable airports/aerodromes in its State to be
included in the list of candidates. This preliminary
identificationshouldbebasedonaboveparametersor
even on some other specific national criteria that
could be proposed and explained by each National
ImplementationTeam.
For identification purposes, each ANSP should
provide all the relevant information of the pre‐
selectedairports.Theinformationofeachairportshall
bepresentedinaspecificformthatisdetailedbelow.
Thissurveyformaimstosummarizetheinformation,
ease theprocess and gather therelevant data
of the
candidateairportsinacoordinatedmannerforallthe
SHERPAANSPpartners.
The candidate airports shall fulfil minimum
technical requirements, at least in terms of physical
characteristics (runway shall be classified as
instrumentalaccordingtoICAOAnnex14,ATS/AFIS
351
should be present, etc.). This first phase will be
completed when a reasonable number of candidate
airports are identified by the corresponding survey
forms.
PANSAidentifiedandanalyzedmostappropriate
airports,landingfieldinPoland,whichwereincluded
in the list of candidates. This preliminary
identification was based on mentioned
above
parameters,specificdomesticcriteriaandisaccepted
inthePolishTeam(NationalImplementationTeam).
For the purposes of the PANSA identification he is
providing with all essential information of the pre‐
selected airports. The information for every airport
waspresentedintheassumedform‐belowspecified
tables for six
airports. The candidate airports
(Katowice EPKT, Kraków EPKK, Rzeszów EPRZ,
Warszawa‐Chopina EPWA, Wrocław EPWR,
Warszawa‐ModlinEPMO,MielecEPML)shallfulfill
minimumtechnicalrequirements,atleastintermsof
physicalcharacteristics(e.g.table1. runwayshallbe
classified as instrumental according to ICAO Annex
14,ATS/AFISshouldbepresent,
etc.).Thisformofthe
examination is aspiring for summarizing the
information, to relieve the process and to collect
essential data of airports of the candidate in the
coordinated way for the entire SHERPA ANSP
partners.
Table1. Identification chart for airports – example of
RzeszówAirport(ICAO:EPRZ,IATA:RZE)
3.2 Aircraftoperators
Similarlytosection2,tomakeagoodidentificationof
aircraft operators, it is essential to collect enough
information of the ones with potential interest in
EGNOSbasedoperations.Thisisacrucialactivityto
bedevelopedbyeachoftheNationalImplementation
Teams in order to survey
the different aircraft
operatorsandobtaintherequiredfeedbackfromthem
toassesstheinterestandcapabilitiestobeincludedin
SHERPAascandidates.
It is very important to aware regarding current
andprojectedRNAVcapabilitiesonboardtheaircraft
operatingattheairportofinterest.Including,though
notrestricted,to
thefollowing:
Aircraftequipmentandnavigationcapabilities.
Airworthinessandoperationalapproval,
CurrentexperiencewithRNPAPCHprocedures,
Operator requirements and preferences for RNP
APCHprocedures,
Plansintermsoffutureequipageandoperational
approval.
The information ofeach identifiedaircraft opera‐
tor shall be presented in
a specific form that is de‐
tailedbelow.Thissurveyformaimstosummarizethe
information,easetheprocessandgathertherele‐vant
data of the candidate aircraft operators in a co‐
ordinated manner for all the SHERPA ANSP part‐
ners.
Table2.Identificationchartforaircraftoperator–example
ofRoyalStarAero
Polish team we know, that is very important it
aware regarding current and projected RNAV capa‐
352
bilitiesonboardtheaircraftoperatingattheairportof
interest. Including, though not restricted, to the
following: aircraft equipment and navigation capa‐
bilities,airworthiness andoperationalapproval,cur‐
rentexperience withRNPAPCH procedures,opera‐
tor requirements and preferences for RNP APCH
procedures, plans in terms of future equipage and
operationalapprovale.g.AircraftoperatorRoyalStar
Aero(Table2).
4 PHASE2‐SELECTIONCRITERIA
Thisisthecoresectionofthisguidancedocumentdue
tothedirectapplicationofthecontentsincludedhere.
Itdescribesthemaincriteriatobetakenintoaccount
by the participating PANSA, when evaluating
the
identifiedscenarios(airports+aircraftoperators)and
theselectionoftheʺbestʺone.
Afterthe identification andpresentation,through
thespecificforms,ofthepotentialscenariocandidates
(ʺairportsʺ where LPV approaches bring tangible
benefits andʺaircraft operatorsʺ with potential
interests on EGNOS based operations), next step is
thedefinitionof
thescenarioselectioncriteria.
The proposed criteria to be used by the
participatingPANSAcomefromthewell‐knownkey
benefitsthattheEGNOSadoptionbringsforaviation
inoperational,safety,economicalandenvironmental
aspects within the Performance Based Navigation
(PBN)concept.
Airportcapabilities shallbe studied todetermine
whether
APV SBAS operations can be implemented
onspecificaerodromes.Thesecriteriaaredetailedin
thefollowingsubsection. Fiveareasareconsideredto
grouptheproposedcriteriabasedonEGNOSbenefits
for the assessment of the candidate airports:
operational, safety, economical, environmental,
capabilities
Some operational criteria that would represent
benefitsinthe
adoptionofLPVapproachesare:
LPV is particularly attractive to runways not
equippedwithILS,althoughalsoitcould;
beusedasback‐upofILS.EGNOSprovideslower
operationalminimaonnonILS;
runwaysandoneachievableminimaestimationis
suggested;
EGNOSallowstoperform
instrumentapproaches
with vertical guidance (APV) based on SBAS
downtoLPVminimatoairportswhichcurrently
onlyprovideNPAorvisualapproaches;
a minimum of physical aerodrome infrastructure
(runway,taxiway,approachlightingetc.)andCNS
Systemsarerequired.;
itprovidesincreasedaccessibilityatairportswith
weather/terrain constraints. Improving
lateral
guidance and proposing vertical guidance,
creatingadirectapproachthatdoesnotcurrently
existwithstandardnavigationresources;
meteorologicaldatasuchaswindstatistics,cloud
ceilingandRVRperrunwayendarerequired;
the airports with existing high OCH (over 500ft)
arespeciallypreferred;
theexistence
ofATC/ATSservicesandtheairport
traffic and number and distribution of flight
operations,mustalsobestudied;
the Visual Segment Surface (VSS) has to be
assessed since its penetration may represent an
obstacle for the publication of the RNP APCH
procedures;
a possible reduction in the decision height
and
loweringtheslopeonthefinalapproach;
thepossibilitytoimplementadvancedprocedures
(e.g.curvedapproaches)andtheintegrationofthe
newprocedureintotheterminalareaimpact.
Of relevant interest are the criteria regarding
safety,forexample:
LPV is able to reduce Controlled Flights Into
Terrain
(CFIT) accidents, because it provides
vertical guidance and situational awareness to
pilots;
It also provides better precision in low altitude
routessuchasforhelicopters.
From an economical point of view criteria could
be:
LPV improves the attractiveness of airports not
equipped with ILS to new airlines (e.g. major
airlines, regional aviation, business aviation,
general aviation, cargo aviation, aerial works,
helicopters,etc).
APV/SBAS allows enhancing accessibility (% of
avoidabledisruptions)flightsthatcanlandatthe
intendeddestination.
EGNOS could reduce and rationalize ground
navigation infrastructure with cost reduction in
maintenance of ground infrastructure and
conventionalnavigation
aids(e.g.NDB,VORand
ILS).
Finally, there are environmental parameters than
canbeincludedfortheselectionprocess:
noisereductioninpopulatedareas.
LPVprovidesmoreefficientapproachesandtime
andfuelsaving.
The proposed criteria based on EGNOS benefits
fortheassessmentofthecandidateaircraftoperators
arelistedbelow:
It will be very positive assessed if the aircraft
operatoroperatesattheairportunderstudy;
fleet composition of aircraft operator will inform
aboutavailabilityofatargettypeofaircrafttobe
selectedforSHERPAproject;
it will be taken into account if
there is any LPV
equippedaircraft;
theaircraftoperatorinvestmentplanisimportant
due to several costs the process involves:
equipment upgrade, certification, procedure
design,training,manualsupdate, etc.
the traffic at a specific airport giving detailed
information of movements and composition
(people/load).
if the aircraft operator use
advanced landing
procedures.
time saving estimation after adoption of
APV/SBASapproachprocedures.
fuelsavingestimationafteradoptionofAPV/SBAS
approachprocedures.
theoperationofLPVapproachesisdonethrough
lowcostandhighperformanceavionicsavailable
forallusers.
353
A set of these criteria shall be selected and
presented using a specific Criteria form (see next
section 5). In order to complete this phase, the
definition of weights of all these criteria (between 0‐
100%dependingontheimportanceorprioritygiven
toeachofthembytheANSP)
shallbeperformed.
5 PHASE3–ASSESSMENT
Basedonabenchmarkanalysismethodology(mark+
weight), each of the criterion will be assessed and
justifiedfor each airportand aircraftoperator based
ontheinformationprovidedforeachofthem.So,the
outcomes of the final scenario selection process
will
be totally based on valuable, objective and justified
decisions.
Theassessmentprocessconsistsof3sub‐phasesas
follows:
Todefineandexplainthemarkstobeapplied;/
Toperformabenchmarkanalysisusingpriordata
justifyingtheevaluation;
To select the final scenario (Airport+Aircraft
Operator)by
meansofanoverallvision.
Figure2.Assessment’sphases
Inputs from Phase 1 (identified candidates) and
Phase 2 (selection criteria) are combined to perform
the assessment and obtain the results as the
conclusion ofthe analysis. See detailed explanations
in thefollowing sub‐sections aboutthe mentioned 3
sub‐phases and one final example for clarification
purposes.
The first step
to perform a consistent benchmark
analysisistodefinethemarkstobeassignedtoeach
parameterorcriterion.Formarks,asimpleapproach
wouldbeusingascalefrom0to10pointsdepending
ofthefull,partialornoncomplianceoftheparameter:
Fullcomplianceor“yes”‐
10points.
Partialcompliance:Xpoints(tobeassessedfrom0
to10).
Noncomplianceor“no”‐0points.
Inthe caseof partial compliance,itis expecteda
threshold definition to guide the mark assignment.
Forexampletable3:
Table3.Thresholddefinitionexample
_______________________________________________
Traffic(number/distribution)
10
Mark
_______________________________________________
X>1×10
6
/20/800
X>1×10
6
/80/201
500×10
3
/20/80>X>100×10
3
/20/803
500×10
3
/80/20>X>100×10
3
/80/204
100×10
3
/20/80>X>50×10
3
/20/806
100×10
3
/80/20>X>50×10
3
/80/207
X<50×10
3
/20/809
X<50×10
3
/80/2010
_______________________________________________
1
Traffic:numberofoperations/yearanddistributionof
people/loadin%.
The assignment of marks in case of partial
compliance shouldbe detailed andjustified by each
ANSP(Poland–PANSA).Atthispoint,themarkand
the weight (previously assigned) to each criterion
shallbejustifiedinordertounderstandtheconditions
ofeachscenarioandbeabletocheck
thesimilarities
anddifferencesamongthepartners.
Theanalysisconsistsofusingtheformspresented
in section 3 and applying the corresponding marks
andweightsforallthecriteria.Crossingmarkswith
theassignedweightswillresultinaspecificfigureto
assess the feasibility of the LPV implementation for
each
individual airport and aircraft operator. This
process shall be repeated for all the airport and
aircraftoperatorcandidates, payingspecial attention
in crossingdata, dueto the aircraftoperator criteria
formshallanalysethecorrespondingaircraftoperator
together withaspecific airport. Inorder to ease the
completion of this
task, the use of an Excel
spreadsheetissuggested.
As explained before, this analysis shall be
completed with a rationale justification of criteria,
marksandweightsselectedineachcase.Thisprocess
shall be repeated for all the airport (for example
Katowice EPKT – table 4) and aircraft operator
candidates (for
exampleAIRCOM –table5), paying
specialattentionincrossing data,due tothe aircraft
operator criteria form shall analyses the
corresponding aircraft operator together with a
specific airport (Poland: Katowice EPKT, Kraków
EPKK, Rzeszów EPRZ, Warszawa EPWA, Wrocław
EPWR,ModlinEPMO,MielecEPML).
10
Traffic: number of operations/year
and distribution of people/load in %.
354
Table4.Modelresultofconductedanalysesfortheairport
EPKTKatowice
Table5.Modelresultofconductedanalysesfortheaircraft
operatorAIRCOM
6 FINALSCENARIO
Final scenarioshall be selected asthe best choice of
“airport + aircraft operator” after crossing all
information forms (table 6). This table presents the
outcome of the study and states that RWY 29 of
EPWAAirportandRWY09ofEPKTAirport,arethe
best option
for implementing a new LPV approach.
Including above analyses, they distinguished one
pair:EPKT(Airport)
–AIRCOM(aircraftoperator).
Table6.Finalscenariosummary
7 CONCLUSION
Thissection liststhesequence ofactionsrequired to
completetheSHERPAactivitiesbyeachANSP(inthe
caseofPolanditwasPANSA):
1 Make a list of airports and aircraft operators
candidates fulfilling the forms with relevant
informationthatappearinsection3.
2 Definethe
criteriathat will beused to assessthe
feasibility of the LPVimplementation. Using one
airport form and one aircraft operator form.
ParticularcriteriacouldbeincludedbytheANSP
ifnecessary.
3 Todefinetheweightofeach criterionandjustify
thedecision.
4 To allocate onemark to each
criterion definedin
section4.
5 Asses usingbenchmark analysis methodology all
theairportandaircraftoperatorcandidates.
6 Presentresultsofthebenchmarkanalysis.
7 Includeanyothernationalspecificcriteria(ifany)
andjustifyitanditsmark.
8 Selectthebestscenariobasedonthefinalresults.
9 Present main conclusions and outcomes of the
analysis.
The“EGNOSPolandMarketAnalysis”wasdrawn
uponthebasisofthe“Guidanceforthepreparation
of EGNOS National Market Analysis based on the
surveyofcandidateairportsandaircraftoperators”.It
is the first document drawn up by PANSA in
SHERPAProject.
Other information as difficulties, implementation
plandetails, lessonslearned, etc.,will beuseful and
interesting for further analysis. Special mention to
benefitsthatcanbereachedlike:
Improvesafety.
ReduceriskofCFIT.
Stabilisedapproach.
Savingcostsforgroundnavaidsmaintenance.
Fewerbuilding
constraints.
Developandimproveservices.
Avoidanceofdelayanddiversion.
Reducedoperationalminima.
Conductedexaminationsshowed,that:
EGNOSmustassurerequiredbyICAO:accuracy,
integrityavailability,continuityinPoland;
GNSS is lacking domestic regulations concerning
theapplication;
355
Allresponsibleinstitutionsmustintheemployed
and coordinated way join in into the process of
implementingGNSS;
Thepartofthefleetonlyhasanessentialavionics.
REFERENCES
Draft Guidance Material for the Implementation of RNP
APCHOperationsPBNTF6WP06Rev105/01/2012
SHERPAGrantAgreementGrantnumber287246
EASA‐AMC 20‐26 : Airworthiness Approval and
OperationalCriteriaforRNPAROperations;
EASA‐AMC 20‐27: Airworthiness Approval and
Operational Criteria for RNPAPPROACH (RNP
APCH) Operations
Including APV BARO VNAV
Operations;
EASA‐Helicopters Deploy GNSS in Europe (HEDGE)
projectdocumentation,
EATMPNavigationStrategyforECAC;
EGNOSIntroductioninEuropeanEasternRegionMIELEC
projectdocumentation,
EURDocument001/RNAV/5GuidanceMaterialRelatingto
the Implemen‐tation of European Air Traffic
ManagementProgramme;
FAA‐AC20‐105:ApprovalGuidance
forRNPOperations
andBarometricVertical NavigationintheU.S.National
AirspaceSystem;
FAA‐AC 20‐129: Airworthiness Approval for Vertical
Navigation(VNAV)Systemsfor Use intheU.S.
NationalAirspaceSystem(NAS)andAlaska;
FAA‐TSO C146A: Stand‐Alone Airborne Navigation
Equipment Using the Global Positioning System
Augmented by the
Wide Area Augmentation System
(WAAS);
FAA:TSO C145A: AirborneNavigation SensorsUsingthe
Global Positioning System (GPS) Augmented by the
WideAreaAugmentationSystem(WAAS);
Fellner A. SHERPA‐PANSA‐NMA‐D11EP Issue: 01‐00
EGNOSPolandMarkedAnalysis,2012
ICAOAnnex10,
ICAODoc8168–PANS‐OPS,
ICAODoc
9613–PBNManual,
ICAODoc9905–RNPARProcedureDesignManual
ICAODoc.7754EuropeanRegionAirNavigationPlan;
ICAOEuropeanRegionTransitionPlantoCNS/ATM;
ICAO Global AirNavigation Plan forCNS/ATM Systems.
Doc9750;
