NATCA Bookshelf

Aeronautical Charting Forum (ACM); plan simulation testing; schedule testing, analyze data/evaluate performance/report results; and analyze cost differences. Discussion about outreach to the facilities for relevant information ensued. The initial desire was to create a work product, notional in nature, that might be used as the basis for facility design activities. However, I cautioned that it would not be prudent to contact facilities requesting information or participation until the FAA and NATCA have evaluated the impacts based on the government shutdown. Additionally, others noted that environmental screening will not be done and relevant data sufficient for notional design can be obtained without outreach. • Intermediate Segment Gradient: Work Session – Gary McMullin (SWA) presented a request to return the 8260.58A criteria for maximum descent gradient in the intermediate segment of RNP approach procedures back to the previous 8260.52/8260.58 limitation of "Equal to Final Segment Gradient". The current limitation of 3 degrees as prescribed in the 8260.3D has the potential to negatively impact procedure development at locations with final segments over 3 degrees. It was suggested that the rationale for defaulting back to this standard related to a desire to align the criteria between the 8260.3D and the 8260.58A. The group supports returning to the old standard, given there would be a requirement in an earlier segment to allow for aircraft configuring, so long as there was not some other rationale for the change to the current 3-degree standard. The change may be related to the increase in CAT D final maximums from 3.10 to 3.50 degrees. Gary Petty (FAA-AFS) will research issue and report back to the WG. Ron Renk (UAL) mentioned a possible concern with a higher angle in the intermediate segment coupled with longer segment lengths. This proposed criterion will need to contain a method to ensure flyability by all operators. During this discussion, an issue with precipitous terrain evaluations was mentioned. Essentially there are three methods available for usage that can lead to different results: TARGETS, algorithms based on squares around the point, IAPA, which uses circles, and precipitous point values (PPV). PPV is a lengthy evaluation process and will not be used on a routine basis, but Petty stated that they will review procedures on an as-needed basis. AFS-420 has a tasking to review precipitous terrain but due to unavailability of resources, a timeline for long term solution for precipitous terrain evaluations cannot be determined. Petty will look into McMullin's precipitous terrain issue on one procedure. Update: following the meeting, AFS reviewed the procedure in question and was able to lower the precipitous terrain additive using the PPV method. This allows the use of a lower altitude and meets descent needs. • AC90-101 Update Status – Jeff Kerr (FAA) stated that the final FAA update is ongoing and should be complete in two weeks. It will then go out for review and comment, which should take about four weeks, and then out again to the FAA for final review. • New Business: KDTW RNAV SID Conformance Issues – Bennie Hutto (NATCA) presented the vector to intercept (VI)-course to fix (CF) SIDs for RWY 03L/04R. KDTW stopped using the SIDs on Dec. 21, 2018, due to aircraft deviating towards the other departure runway. Items they believe may be related to issue are: the VI legs being two NM long, no climb gradient to 500 feet, and where lateral navigation (LNAV) is engaged, which Rich Boll (NBAA) asked if there could a compass error. Gary McMullin (SWA) said CRJs could be holding heading after liftoff which could be off the VI heading until LNAV is engaged. The flight director is relatively sloppy, and unless the map scale is changed to a lower setting, it will appear to be on the magenta line. If the VI leg is shorter, the

• Cover
• SAFETY AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT