The differences in performance of various manufacturers ' Flight Management Systems (FMSs) and their associated Flight Management Computers (FMCs) have the potential for significant impact on the air traffic control system and as such need to be examined and reexamined. While Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures and routes are designed according to criteria contained in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) orders, FMC manufacturers build their systems in accordance with Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS) [1] and Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) [2] for area navigation systems, Technical Service Orders and Advisory Circulars.It is anticipated that the resulting performance of the aircraft FMC will meet the procedure design requirements identified in the FAA criteria.Airlines and air traffic controllers have as their goal flight procedures where aircraft operations meet expectations for repeatability and predictability to levels of performance sufficient to support performance based operations in the National Airspace System (NAS). Sometimes, due to the nearly independent development of procedure design criteria and aircraft performance standards, the paths of various aircraft on the same procedure do not overlap and do not match the expectancy of the procedure designer. These differences may result from any or all of the following: variations in FMC equipment installed on the aircraft; variations and errors in procedure coding in the FMC navigation database; variations in aircraft-to-FMC interface and associated aircraft performance capabilities; and variations in flight crew training and procedures.The hypothesis of this paper is that the basic FMCs built by avionics manufacturers and installed as the core of the FMC/FMS combinations in various airframe platforms perform differently and we will attempt to quantify those differences. This paper focuses on aspects of lateral and vertical flight FMC performance when processing mandatory block altitudes, aircraft bank angle on turns above flight level nineteen thousand five hundred feet (FL195), determining the vertical transition point at fly-by waypoints, and execution of Optimized Profile Descents (OPDs). Public instrument procedures flown using RNAV are used as the baseline for measuring performance variations.Controlled field observations trials were made using thirteen test benches and four simulators at seven major FMC manufacturers and three airlines. The intent of this report is to contribute technical data as a foundation for the acceptance of mandatory block altitude usage in RNAV and Basic RNP procedures; allow Standard Instrument Departure (SID) and Standard Arrival (STAR) procedure design criteria to utilize bank angles in excess of five degrees above FL195; satisfy an open FAA/Industry Aeronautical Charting Forum issue concerning the vertical transition point at fly-by waypoints; and assess FMC processing of an Optimized Profile Descent.

The differences in performance of various manufacturers' Flight Management Systems (FMSs) and their associated Flight Management Computers (FMCs) have the potential for significant impact on the air traffic control system. While Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures and routes are designed according to criteria contained in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) orders, FMCs are built to meet Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS) [1] and the Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) [2] for area navigation systems, Technical Service Orders and Advisory Circulars. The expectation is the resulting performance of the aircraft FMC will meet the procedure design requirements identified in the FAA criteria. The airspace design goal is procedures where aircraft operations result in repeatable and predictable paths. However, actual aircraft performance frequently does not match the expectations of the procedure designer. Studies referenced in this paper such as Assessment of Operational Differences Among Flight Management Systems [3], Analysis of Advanced Flight Management Systems (FMSs) [4] and Analysis of Advanced Flight Management Systems (FMSs), FMC Field Observations Trials [5] have shown that these differences result from variations in FMS equipment; variations and errors in data collection and processing; variations in pilot training and airline operating procedures; and variations in aircraft performance. This paper presents the hypothesis that given a standardized performance-based (RNAV/RNP) procedure with coded altitudes, variations in vertical path performance will exist among the various FMC/FMS combinations that are tested. Controlled observations were made using twelve different test benches at five major FMC manufacturers and three full-motion simulators at the FAA and two airlines. This focus on vertical navigation (VNAV) path conformance follows the MITRE Corporation's analysis of lateral navigation (LNAV) path Conformance described in Analysis of Advanced Flight Management Systems (FMSs), FMC Field Observations Trials [5].

No abstract

No abstract

The differences in performance of various manufacturers' Flight Management Systems (FMSs) and their associated Flight Management Computers (FMCs) have the potential for significant operational impact on the air traffic control system and as such need to be examined on a recurring basis.Performance-based navigation (PBN) is a fundamental principle for aircraft operations that will facilitate the transition to future airspace systems. A critical element of PBN is the FMS's capability to fly a consistently repeatable and predictable flight path trajectory that will meet the expectations of air traffic control. FMS manufacturers build their systems in accordance with [1] and [2] for area navigation systems, Technical Standard Orders and AdvisoryCirculars. Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures and routes are published by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) according to criteria contained in FAA orders. It is anticipated that the resulting performance of the aircraft FMC will meet the procedure design requirements identified in the FAA criteria.Sometimes, due to the nearly independent development of procedure design criteria and aircraft performance standards, the paths of various aircraft on the same procedure do not coincide and therefore do not match the expectations of the procedure designer. These differences may result from any or all of the following: variations in FMC equipment installed on the aircraft; variations and errors in procedure coding in the FMC navigation database; variations in aircraft-to-FMC interface and associated aircraft performance capabilities; and variations in flight crew training and procedures.The hypothesis of this paper is that the FMCs built by avionics manufacturers and installed as the core of the FMC/FMS combinations in various airframe platforms perform differently and we will attempt to quantify those differences. This paper focuses on FMC performance when flying Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) and their associated waypoints and leg types (path terminators) and combinations as described in [3]. Public instrument procedures flown using RNAV equipment are used as the baseline for measuring the performance variations.Controlled field observations trials were made using twelve FMS test benches and three simulators at seven major FMC manufacturers and two airlines. Analysis of data from the trials confirms differences and the details are presented.