NATCA Bookshelf

applied visual separation. It was explained that ATC must have approved separation before and after the application of visual separation, and that the Airmens Information Manual (AIM) provides guidance on this topic as well. Industry did believe the AIM contained the right information and they felt it would be best if ATC advised the pilots when visual separation was no longer required due to ATC issuing diverging courses or when vertical separation was reached. The NAV CANADA representative advised the group that their requirements instruct the controllers to advise the pilots when visual separation is no longer being applied or required by the pilots. This topic will be discussed further at future meetings. • EoR Operational Concerns: A briefing was given by Brad Sims, Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA) concerning an issue that occurred at KDEN where one aircraft was cleared for an RNAV (RNP) approach with a RF turn to RWY 16R while another aircraft was cleared for a visual approach to RWY 16L. The pilot flying the RNAV (RNP) was concerned about the aircraft on the visual approach towards the airport and received a Pilot Deviation. Although this was a legal operation under FAA 7110.65, Section 7-4-4c, industry believes it creates a human factors issue, especially on closely spaced parallel runways. In this case, the runways were separated by 2605 feet and they feel it would be better to have the aircraft conducting the visual approach to be established on final prior to the point where the RNP is turning onto final. Our next meeting is being held in Atlanta on Dec. 13-14. PARC NAV WG Our next meeting is scheduled for Nov. 7-8 in Atlanta, Ga. Josh Haviland will be leading the meeting, and Ron Renk of UAL will give a presentation regarding STAR Terminus Altitudes being lower than the initial altitude at the Initial Approach Fix (IAF) or Initial Fix (IF) of an Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP). Below is a copy of his statement: STAR Terminus Altitudes – Problem Statement As Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures started to make their way through the National Airspace System (NAS) an issue surfaced when the Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR) terminus altitude was lower than the altitude at the initial approach fix (IAF) of an instrument approach procedure (IAP). In this case, most modern Flight Management Computers (FMC) will not allow the entry of a descent to the bottom altitude of the STAR, followed by a climb to go back up to the IAF altitude coded on the approach. While common not to allow such an operation by the FMC, there are variations on how FMC OEMs handle this exception which can cause further pilot confusion. One example is the GE FMC which will not allow the execution of a route that has this descent, followed by climb operation. In the GE handling, if the pilot misses an obscure scratch pad message when loading the STAR and approach, later they will not get an execute light on the MCDU and must discover why they have a MOD route with no EXEC light. We mainly see this issue at locations where the STAR ends on a downwind, but the approach is built to handle both the downwind and straight in traffic. The primary cause of this problem

• Cover