Getting in and out of Queenstown
Slamer,
I don't believe ANZ RNP 0.11 ZQN minima to be lower than QF. Qantas along with ANZ had the foresight to contract Naverus to construct the RNP app for ZQN. Prior to QF conducting RNP-AR app's the only two airlines to my knowledge to have done them, is WestJet and Alaskan. It was WestJet who pioneered RNP-AR approach construction, partnering with Boeing to do so. In-fact Naverus staff are mostly ex-WestjJet.
Qantas has also had Naverus construct RNP-AR app's into a number of Australian destinations, with the aim of flying more efficient flight paths than a typical 10nm ILS, the QF RNP-AR destinations include CB, CS and others. QF has been lobbying CASA to get on-board and now CASA has contracted Naverus to construct RNP-AR approaches into other Aus destinations that will still be AR but will be available to multiple operators rather the QF proprietary, these are now available into ML, BN ect.
With regard to your question to Shrags, what difference are you referring to? all RNP app's are in-fact RNP-AR in Aus, the delineation being RNAV(GNSS) approaches that are available to TSO 129/145/146 GNSS receivers or certain MMR equipped aircraft to a specified RNP value, for approved operators, all RNAV(GNSS) approaches are constructed to PANSOPS app criteria and not RNP-AR containment.
Cheers,
MHA
I don't believe ANZ RNP 0.11 ZQN minima to be lower than QF. Qantas along with ANZ had the foresight to contract Naverus to construct the RNP app for ZQN. Prior to QF conducting RNP-AR app's the only two airlines to my knowledge to have done them, is WestJet and Alaskan. It was WestJet who pioneered RNP-AR approach construction, partnering with Boeing to do so. In-fact Naverus staff are mostly ex-WestjJet.
Qantas has also had Naverus construct RNP-AR app's into a number of Australian destinations, with the aim of flying more efficient flight paths than a typical 10nm ILS, the QF RNP-AR destinations include CB, CS and others. QF has been lobbying CASA to get on-board and now CASA has contracted Naverus to construct RNP-AR approaches into other Aus destinations that will still be AR but will be available to multiple operators rather the QF proprietary, these are now available into ML, BN ect.
With regard to your question to Shrags, what difference are you referring to? all RNP app's are in-fact RNP-AR in Aus, the delineation being RNAV(GNSS) approaches that are available to TSO 129/145/146 GNSS receivers or certain MMR equipped aircraft to a specified RNP value, for approved operators, all RNAV(GNSS) approaches are constructed to PANSOPS app criteria and not RNP-AR containment.
Cheers,
MHA
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both QF and ANZ fly the RNP-AR approaches to the same design minima. To Rwy05 that's between 2/3ft, Rwy23 is higher around 6/7 hundred ft. The minima's differ with the RNP used but any RNP operators authorised below 0.3 can get to the same minima. That means that on any day with conditions below the VOR minimas 3/4 thousand ft, QF and ANZ will be more likely to succeed in getting in as they can use the RNP-AR minimas.
However seeing the runway and landing on it are two different matters. As operators become more and more successful in operating direct flights to and from ZQN, more and more people choose to fly with them. The more people the more weight, and in marginal conditions you are often presented with a wet runway.
Here in lies a difference. QF are obliged to confirm to the CASA requirements factoring landing distance by 1.97 on the wet runway. ANZ do not have to operate to this standard enroute and at the point of landing I understand their factoring is only 1.15. This can make QF too heavy to land on a wet runway when ANZ can continue to land.
At the end of the day both QF and ANZ can get to the same minima. From there on, aircraft weights and regulatory requirements make the difference between getting in and missing out.
However seeing the runway and landing on it are two different matters. As operators become more and more successful in operating direct flights to and from ZQN, more and more people choose to fly with them. The more people the more weight, and in marginal conditions you are often presented with a wet runway.
Here in lies a difference. QF are obliged to confirm to the CASA requirements factoring landing distance by 1.97 on the wet runway. ANZ do not have to operate to this standard enroute and at the point of landing I understand their factoring is only 1.15. This can make QF too heavy to land on a wet runway when ANZ can continue to land.
At the end of the day both QF and ANZ can get to the same minima. From there on, aircraft weights and regulatory requirements make the difference between getting in and missing out.
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks again
Firstly; Air NZ currently do not fly any RNAV/RNP app's into CNS.
As for the diff between RNP and RNP-AR. Although these terms conform to a basic ICAO format there have been some relatively recent changes in designation. It is prob fair to say terminology may diff from state to state, so perhaps I should be a little more careful as the Oz's most likely have their own unique system.
ICAO has recommended all states move from a sensor-based Nav concept (eg GPS) to PBN. (perf based nav)
The PBN concept specifies system perf requirements.
RNP app allows a Nav accuracy of 0.3 (old designation RNAV/GNSS)
RNP-AR APP allows a Nav accuracy of 0.1--0.3 (old desig RNP-SAAAR)
RNP AR
Required Navigation Performance with Authorization Required
(RNP AR) is an enhanced concept of RNP, allowing:
The testing/proving, procedures and requirements that go into "authorizing" each RNP-AR app are too detailed for me to be bothered going into here. But every app will be evaluated to its own unique parameters.
Some procedures may require extra equipment, documentation, crew training, crew combinations, additional flight planning all on a fleet by fleet or even a/c by a/c basis
As for the minima at ZQN.. 200/300 sounds about the same as ANZ onto R23. Someone may have the exact Air NZ 23 minima...?
Firstly; Air NZ currently do not fly any RNAV/RNP app's into CNS.
As for the diff between RNP and RNP-AR. Although these terms conform to a basic ICAO format there have been some relatively recent changes in designation. It is prob fair to say terminology may diff from state to state, so perhaps I should be a little more careful as the Oz's most likely have their own unique system.
ICAO has recommended all states move from a sensor-based Nav concept (eg GPS) to PBN. (perf based nav)
The PBN concept specifies system perf requirements.
RNP app allows a Nav accuracy of 0.3 (old designation RNAV/GNSS)
RNP-AR APP allows a Nav accuracy of 0.1--0.3 (old desig RNP-SAAAR)
RNP AR
Required Navigation Performance with Authorization Required
(RNP AR) is an enhanced concept of RNP, allowing:
- to reduce the ‘RNP’ value below 0.3 Nm (down to 0.1 Nm), and /or
- to reduce the obstacle protections (no buffer), and /or
- to fly curved flight paths after the Final Approach Fix (FAF)
- RNP strictly lower than 1 during missed approach and departure
The testing/proving, procedures and requirements that go into "authorizing" each RNP-AR app are too detailed for me to be bothered going into here. But every app will be evaluated to its own unique parameters.
Some procedures may require extra equipment, documentation, crew training, crew combinations, additional flight planning all on a fleet by fleet or even a/c by a/c basis
As for the minima at ZQN.. 200/300 sounds about the same as ANZ onto R23. Someone may have the exact Air NZ 23 minima...?
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit ,more from ATW
Air New Zealand sets RNP first
May 25, 2010
Air New Zealand achieved a world first for Airbus, using RNP level 0.1 for Sydney-Rotorua service on May 22 despite cloud cover down to just 400 ft. The RNP 0.1 value is the lowest level approved by Airbus and authority to operate below RNP 0.3 had just been granted to ANZ the previous day. Without the technology, NZ978 would have had to divert to Auckland, causing significant disruption to the inbound passengers and also to the outbound passengers scheduled to depart from Rotorua to Sydney the same afternoon.
ANZ pioneered RNP for the A320, initially to get into Queenstown, which is surrounded by mountains. According to Performance Based Navigation Project Manager Philip Kirk, RNP was introduced on six of ANZ's 737s three years ago for use into Queenstown, with the initiative so successful that it was extended to the airline's A320s, making ANZ the first carrier in the world to have an entire A320 fleet RNP-enabled. "RNP has proved to be a huge benefit to customers and the airline with excellent reliability into Queenstown through some very challenging weather conditions over the past few years," Kirk said.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: drw
Age: 62
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZAQN closures/diversions
Does anyone know how do we get numbers on number of days ZQN is closed or partially closed or diversions occur ?
Alternate used to be IVC but think it's now DUD.
Can anyone confirm & why the change as IVC is around 100kms closer by road.
Alternate used to be IVC but think it's now DUD.
Can anyone confirm & why the change as IVC is around 100kms closer by road.
Air NZ ZQN diversions and CCLD flights prior to RNP AR was about 70 per year, and once RNP AR 0.30 qualified that dropped to 16 per year and mainly due to low cloud, fog and or wind. With the lower RNP AR to 0.1 that is looking like down to about 4 to 6 so far with fog and wind.
Air NZ operate about 6 jetflights a day in winter and up to 9 a day in the summer peak.
Air NZ operate about 6 jetflights a day in winter and up to 9 a day in the summer peak.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: World
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MHA
Some great points you made but as to who developed it first, that accolade goes to Alaska Airlines and the co-founders of Naverus (the extract below was taken from the Naverus website). Westjet was Naverus' first customer and several of the employees are ex Alaska/Horizon with a few Westjet folks as well.
DA
"The founders of Naverus pioneered the development and certification of the world's first RNP procedures—the Gastineau Channel approach and departures—which are still flown by Alaska Airlines today.
Beginning in 1992, Captain Steve Fulton led the Alaska Airlines team that deployed more than 30 RNP procedures in southeast Alaska. Alaska's first landing using RNP occurred in 1996 in Juneau, Alaska.
In February 2003, Fulton, along with Alaska Airlines Captain Hal Andersen and high-tech entrepreneur Dan Gerrity, founded Naverus to provide PBN solutions around the world."
Some great points you made but as to who developed it first, that accolade goes to Alaska Airlines and the co-founders of Naverus (the extract below was taken from the Naverus website). Westjet was Naverus' first customer and several of the employees are ex Alaska/Horizon with a few Westjet folks as well.
DA
"The founders of Naverus pioneered the development and certification of the world's first RNP procedures—the Gastineau Channel approach and departures—which are still flown by Alaska Airlines today.
Beginning in 1992, Captain Steve Fulton led the Alaska Airlines team that deployed more than 30 RNP procedures in southeast Alaska. Alaska's first landing using RNP occurred in 1996 in Juneau, Alaska.
In February 2003, Fulton, along with Alaska Airlines Captain Hal Andersen and high-tech entrepreneur Dan Gerrity, founded Naverus to provide PBN solutions around the world."
ANZ do not have to operate to this standard enroute and at the point of landing I understand their factoring is only 1.15
Domeair,
Many thanks for clearing that up. It would seem I had Westjet and Alaskan airlines roles in RNP implementation the wrong way round.
Slamer,
As per ICAO there is only one RNP approach (thus far reserved in ICAO doc 8168 Vol 1). RNAV(GNSS) approaches including approaches with and without vertical guidance are constructed to PANSOPS or TERPS criteria (PANSOPS detailed in doc 8168 Vol2). RNP approach design is a very different beast with numerous advantages over traditional approach design, including protection of the missed approach after a go-around from below DA, a very big step forward in my opinion. The push forward by ICAO to PBN has been slowly moving forward for a few years and is mainly centred around the en-route and terminal phases of flight.
Regards,
MHA
Many thanks for clearing that up. It would seem I had Westjet and Alaskan airlines roles in RNP implementation the wrong way round.
Slamer,
As per ICAO there is only one RNP approach (thus far reserved in ICAO doc 8168 Vol 1). RNAV(GNSS) approaches including approaches with and without vertical guidance are constructed to PANSOPS or TERPS criteria (PANSOPS detailed in doc 8168 Vol2). RNP approach design is a very different beast with numerous advantages over traditional approach design, including protection of the missed approach after a go-around from below DA, a very big step forward in my opinion. The push forward by ICAO to PBN has been slowly moving forward for a few years and is mainly centred around the en-route and terminal phases of flight.
Regards,
MHA
The design of RNP AR approaches is quite different from anything in PANS OPS - the design criteria are prescribed in their own manual and are based on the FAA SAAAR criteria.
The RNP criteria originally specified in PANS OPS are obsolete and bear little resemblance to RNP AR criteria. They are retained solely to support existing procedures. These have now been removed in NZ and replaced by RNAV(GNSS) with baro-VNAV.
The QN procedures were first developed for QF 737-800s, but that does not mean all 737-800s are equal. The authorisation actually specifies the software update version for the FMS.
The RNP criteria originally specified in PANS OPS are obsolete and bear little resemblance to RNP AR criteria. They are retained solely to support existing procedures. These have now been removed in NZ and replaced by RNAV(GNSS) with baro-VNAV.
The QN procedures were first developed for QF 737-800s, but that does not mean all 737-800s are equal. The authorisation actually specifies the software update version for the FMS.
The design of RNP AR approaches is quite different from anything in PANS OPS - the design criteria are prescribed in their own manual and are based on the FAA SAAAR criteria
The RNP criteria originally specified in PANS OPS are obsolete and bear little resemblance to RNP AR criteria.
These have now been removed in NZ and replaced by RNAV(GNSS) with baro-VNAV.
Cheers,
MHA
Last edited by MaxHelixAngle; 15th Sep 2010 at 04:18. Reason: Typo
These have now been removed in NZ and replaced by RNAV(GNSS) with baro-VNAV.
The first RNP approaches in NZ were niether fish nor fowl and did not really meet any specific requirements hence they were removed and replaced with RNAV(GNSS).
[QUOTE]
They are still in Edition 5 Volume 2 Part III Section I Chapter 7 with the caveat previously mentioned.
RNAV(GNSS) approach procedures meet the PBN navigation specifications for RNP APCH and are designed as such. RNAV(GNSS) SID & STAR meet the PBN navigation specifications for Basic RNP-1. Because they are not named as RNP does not mean they do not meet the PBN specifications for an RNP system.
PBN provides a distinction between RNAV and RNP specifications. The difference is RNP requires onboard performance and integrity monitoring. A basic GNSS TSO C129 receiver is required to have a RAIM capability, which satisfies this requirement.
There is no RNP approach design or ops specs in ICAO Doc 8168 (PANSOPS)
RNAV(GNSS), previously called by many names, is not and never was RNP. By RNP philosophy, it cant be, it is designed and dependent on a particular sensor (GNSS) and not PBN.
PBN provides a distinction between RNAV and RNP specifications. The difference is RNP requires onboard performance and integrity monitoring. A basic GNSS TSO C129 receiver is required to have a RAIM capability, which satisfies this requirement.
