Area Navigation and Required Navigation Performance Procedures and Depictions Divya C. Chandra Rebecca J. Grayhem U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 02142 Abhizna Butchibabu Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) DOT/FAA/TC-12/8 Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics DOT-VNTSC-FAA-12-10 Cambridge, MA 02139 NextGen FINAL REPORT September 2012 Human Factors Division U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration This document is available to the public through the 800 Independence Avenue, SW National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Washington, DC 20591 Virginia, 22161. Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. Notice The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED September 2012 Final Report 2012 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Area Navigation and Required Navigation Performance Procedures and Depictions FA6YC1 FS535, HS535, and JS535; FA6YC2 JL727; 6. AUTHOR(S) FA6YC3 JL611; FA6YC5 Divya C. Chandra, Rebecca Grayhem, and Abhizna Butchibabu JLA12; FA6YC6 KT843; FA6YC8 LJ225 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER U.S. Department of Transportation John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Research and Innovative Technology Administration DOT-VNTSC-FAA-12-10 Cambridge, MA 02142-1093 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration NextGen DOT/FAA/TC-12/8 Human Factors Division (ANG-C1) Washington, D.C. 20591 Program Managers: Dr. Tom McCloy and Mr. Dan Herschler 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) Area navigation (RNAV) and required navigation performance (RNP) procedures are fundamental to the implementation of a performance based navigation (PBN) system, which is a key enabling technology for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). As new RNAV and RNP procedures are developed, they are published as charts for use by appropriately qualified pilots. These charts and procedures describe paths that must be flown precisely for improved use of airspace and safety. In this document, we consider how charts for both conventional and PBN procedures are designed from a human factors perspective. First, we document current charting challenges and mitigation strategies. Next, we describe a review of procedures that was done to discover which features were related to difficulty of use or visual complexity. The more difficult instrument approach charts depict procedures with more flight paths, path segments, and radius-to-fix legs. Standard instrument departure procedures that are more difficult show more flight paths. Standard terminal arrival route procedures that are more difficult have more total altitude constraints and path segments. Finally, we describe the process for designing and implementing new instrument procedures, which involves significant coordination both inside and outside the government. 14. SUBJECT TERM 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Aeronautical chart, performance based operations, area navigation, required navigation 50 performance, RNAV, RNP, instrument procedures, human factors, visual clutter, PBN 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified ii This page left blank intentionally. iii Preface This document was prepared by the Aviation Human Factors Division of the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) with assistance from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. The Volpe Center was funded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) NextGen Human Factors Division (ANG-C1). MIT was funded by Volpe Center through Contract No. DTR57-07-D-30006. Ms. Butchibabu conducted the chart review presented here as part of her work towards a Master’s degree. Her adviser was Prof. R. John Hansman in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. We would like to thank our program managers, Tom McCloy and Dan Herschler (ANG-C1) and our technical sponsors, Kathy Abbott (AVS) and Mark Steinbicker (AFS-470) for their help with this effort. Particular thanks also go to the many subject matter experts who provided assistance and knowledge for this effort. These include Ted Thompson (Jeppesen), John Moore, Valerie Watson, and Brad Rush (FAA AeroNav Products), David Strassen (Navtech), Peter Hagenlueke (Lufthansa Systems/Lido), Rich Boll (National Business Aviation Association), and Pedro Rivas (Air Line Pilots Association). Thanks also go to other members of the project team who helped to review this document, Alan Midkiff (MIT) and Andrew Kendra (Volpe Center). Michael Zuschlag, Volpe Center, also provided valuable feedback on the report. Jason Goodman (formerly of Volpe Center) helped Abhizna Butchibabu in the early stages of the chart review. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, or the United States Department of Transportation. Feedback on this document may be sent to Divya Chandra ([email protected]) or Rebecca Grayhem ([email protected]). Further information on this research effort is available at http://www.volpe.dot.gov/coi/hfrsa/ahf/ip/index.html. iv METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) 1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in) 1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in) 1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft) 1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1.1 yards (yd) 1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi) AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE) 1 square inch (sq in, in2) = 6.5 square centimeters 1 square centimeter (cm2) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2) (cm2) 1 square foot (sq ft, ft2) = 0.09 square meter (m2) 1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, yd2) 1 square yard (sq yd, yd2) = 0.8 square meter (m2) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2) 1 square mile (sq mi, mi2) = 2.6 square kilometers (km2) 10,000 square meters (m2) = 1 hectare (ha] = 2.5 acres 1 acre = 0.4 hectare (he) = 4,000 square meters (m2) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) 1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (oz) 1 pound (lb) = 0.45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb) 1 short ton = 2,000 pounds = 0.9 tonne (t) 1 tonne (t) = 1,000 kilograms (kg) (lb) = 1.1 short tons VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) 1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz) 1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 2.1 pints (pt) 1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 1.06 quarts (qt) 1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (l) 1 liter (l) = 0.26 gallon (gal) 1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l) 1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l) 1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l) 1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft3) = 0.03 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft3) 1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd3) = 0.76 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3) TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT) ((x-32)(5/9)) F = y C ((9/5) y + 32) C = x F QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION 0 1 2 3 4 5 Inches Centimeters 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION °F - 40°-22° -4° 14° 32° 50° 68° 86° 104° 122° 140°158°176°194°212° °C -40°-30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100° For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and Measures. Price [2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286 Updated 6/17/98 v Table of Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1 2 Charting Challenges for RNAV and RNP Procedures......................................................................3 3 Charting Options .......................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Graphical Design................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Separating Information Across Pages .................................................................................... 16 3.3 Removing Information .......................................................................................................... 16 4 Assessment of Procedure Attributes .............................................................................................. 17 4.1 Method ................................................................................................................................. 17 4.2 Approach Procedures ............................................................................................................ 18 4.3 SID Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 19 4.4 STAR Procedures .................................................................................................................. 20 4.5 Directions for Further Exploration ......................................................................................... 21 5 Design and Implementation of Instrument Procedures ................................................................... 22 5.1 NavLean Instrument Flight Procedures .................................................................................. 23 5.2 Approach Procedures ............................................................................................................ 23 5.3 SID and STAR Procedures .................................................................................................... 24 5.4 Regional Variation in Procedure Design ................................................................................ 25 6 Summary and Areas for Future Research ...................................................................................... 25 7 References .................................................................................................................................... 27 Appendix A: Procedures Analyzed ...................................................................................................... 29 Appendix B: Procedure Data Samples and Summaries by Airport ....................................................... 32 vi List of Tables Table 1. International procedures reviewed. ........................................................................................... 12 Table 2 Elements recorded by type of procedure. ................................................................................... 18 Table 3. Airports analyzed for approach procedures ............................................................................... 19 Table 4. Airports in the SID analysis. .................................................................................................... 20 Table 5. Airports in the STAR analysis. ................................................................................................. 21 List of Figures Figure 1. RNAV and RNP routes compared with conventional routes. ..................................................... 1 Figure 2. Localizer Backcourse Runway 28L at Boise, Idaho (left) and RNAV (RNP) Z Runway 28L (right) ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3. ILS procedure into DeKalb-Peachtree Airport (KPDK) ............................................................. 5 Figure 4. RNAV approach procedure into DeKalb-Peachtree Airport (KPDK) ......................................... 5 Figure 5. RNAV (RNP) approach procedure into DeKalb-Peachtree Airport (KPDK) .............................. 6 Figure 6. Washington, DC approach procedure with multiple turns after the final approach fix (JTSON). 6 Figure 7 Salt Lake City Leetz Two RNAV Departure .............................................................................. 7 Figure 8 Salt Lake City Wevic Two RNAV Departure. ............................................................................ 8 Figure 9. RNAV (RNP) Approach into Boise Runway 28 Right. ............................................................ 10 Figure 10. Boise runway 28 Right, final segment of the Emett transition on the CDU (left) and ND (right). .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 vii Executive Summary The Volpe Center Aviation Human Factors Division is sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to examine the design, depiction, usability, and flyability of instrument procedures in order to reduce their susceptibility to errors by appropriately qualified pilots. Our main focus is on depictions of area navigation (RNAV) and required navigation performance (RNP) procedures, which are being developed in the transition to Performance Based Navigation (PBN) operations. The integration of RNAV and RNP with conventional procedures is also within the scope of this research because hybrid procedures are being developed. PBN operations are a key component of the evolution of the National Airspace System (NAS) towards the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). RNAV and RNP procedures need to be designed such that they can be clearly depicted and used by pilots. The Performance Based Navigation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (PARC) RNP Chart Saturation Action Team was tasked in 2009 and 2010 to review concerns and prepare recommendations related to RNAV (RNP) approach procedures that are difficult to depict. Similar concerns were discussed in other groups, such as the Aeronautical Charting Forum. This report is a primer on charting issues for human factors researchers. Our approach was to learn as much as we could from subject matter experts, websites, and available industry literature, such as presentations and meeting notes. We summarized and documented this information in a way that highlights open issues that are researchable. We also conducted an analysis of charts that is summarized here and presented in detail in a separate report (Butchibabu and Hansman, 2012). We focus on the charting of RNAV and RNP procedures that are graphically depicted in a pre-composed, static format originally designed for distribution in paper form. These charts are now available on electronic devices in Portable Document Format (PDF), which are still static and pre-composed images. Although dynamic, data-driven electronic charts are envisioned for the future, pre-composed charts (both electronic and paper versions) are expected to be in use for the foreseeable future. Because we address the content of charts and not just their format, our work has implications for data-driven electronic charts as well. Arrival, departure, and approach procedures are considered equally throughout this report. In addition, our observations may also be applicable to charts for conventional procedures, not just RNAV and RNP procedures. The report is divided into three sections. First, we describe current charting challenges and potential mitigations for these challenges. We examined charts from different manufacturers for different airports, both within and outside the United States (US), in order to understand what techniques have been used for handling challenging cartographic situations. Some strategies include use of summary tables and not-to- scale sections of the graphical route depiction. After reviewing charting challenges and mitigation strategies, we were interested to know whether any objectively identifiable parameters of a procedure were correlated with difficulty of use. For this analysis, we compared two sets of RNAV and RNAV (RNP) charts in terms of different objective variables. One set of procedures was selected from those with operational issues noted in a review of Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) reports (Butchibabu, Midkiff, Kendra, Hansman, and Chandra, 2010) or were highlighted by subject matter experts as being unusually complex; these were placed in the “Problematic” set. The second set of procedures, labeled “Baseline,” consisted of RNAV and RNAV (RNP) procedures from a set of 35 commercial airports in the US with significant activity (formerly known as the Operational Evolution Partnership airports) that did not appear in the Problematic set. Data were gathered from 63 RNAV (RNP) approach procedures, 52 RNAV Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs), and 54 RNAV Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs). For approaches, we recorded attributes such as the number of flight paths shown, the total number of segments per path, and the number of curved segments. For SID and STAR procedures we recorded a slightly different set of variables (e.g., number of flight paths, number and types of altitude constraints, the types of altitudes viii depicted, distances along the different route segments, and overall distance for each path). For approaches, the main differences between the Problematic and Baseline sets were that the Problematic set had (a) more flight paths (b) more path segments, and (c) more curved (radius-to-fix) segments. For SID procedures, the Problematic set had more flight paths. For STAR procedures, the Problematic set had more path segments and more altitude constraints. Finally, we provide background information on how procedures are designed and implemented, who is involved in the process, and the documents that specify the process. Procedure development involves the coordination of many individuals with different areas of expertise, across different branches of the FAA and between the FAA and operators. This process is currently changing, as lean management processes are put into place. One observation about this process is that instrument approach procedures are regulatory in nature and therefore have little flexibility in their design and use. However arrivals and departures are not regulatory and can be used in a more flexible manner by Air Traffic Control. We conclude with suggested topics for future human factors research on aeronautical charting. ix