曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
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
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
航空资料1(83)
