A publication of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Issue link: http://natca.uberflip.com/i/592965
published procedures don't include key fixes as transition fixes (for example when sending someone direct to a fix on a procedure, say on a shortcut, that fix may not be coded a nd therefore is not loadable). They have identified, and AJV - 14 has agreed to pursue, 12 procedures spread throughout the country that require small tweaks (usually coding changes to transition fixes) to existing published procedures that will e nable aircr aft to participate. Obviously, any change to a published procedure has the potential to be more than just a minor amendment and careful consideration needs to be directed at thoroughly evaluating those changes. We don't want to get into a situation of havi ng to revamp a ton of procedures in the system by coding all waypoints as enroute transitions so a lot of variables need to be considered before moving forward. Designers of procedures need to be briefed/trained on this issue, procedures already in the pip eline can adapt to this and how this fits in with existing orders and production priority. · NSPP – No Changes · PBN Strategy , PARC GBAS and GLS – If this were ever to occur, mixed equipage is going to be an issue for us like mixing RNAV and IL S now, we would have to have a way of knowing who is equipped and be able to fit in with other approaches like ILS or RNAV. They suggested a controlled environment to test only GLS approaches like on its own runway but this presents capacity issues as ther e aren't as many equipped for this to possibly fill up enough capacity that wouldn't affec t others with an unused runway. This type of operation would help as far as critical areas are concerned because you wouldn't have aircraft holding from t he runway li ke you do for ILSs. Another concern brought up if you get rid of too many ILSs at medium airports, then everybody including very small aircraft will end up going to larger airports during an outage causing capacity issues. The final advantage is the possib i lity of multiple glide paths to avoid wake turbulence and some study will be done to see what the higher paths and maximum path would be but how much higher can they really go above the normal 3 degrees comfortably. This may not be realistic. · RNAV Holding – As previously reported, there is no RNAV, RNP or precision course guidance defined holding in the NAS or internationally. It is all based on 60 year - old patterns based on NAVAIDs. This is going to be addressed at the Aeronautical Charting Forum. One change of interest for us is when the pilot slows for pattern entry. Current guidance has the pilot slowing as to cross the holding fix at a certain speed but knowing that using an RNAV system for conventional holding presents an accuracy issue and it is possible the pilot to slow too late and not remain with in the confines of the pattern. A proposal for a requirement for the pilot to accomplish the speed reduction 3 minutes prior to the entry fix will ensure compliance and will probably pass at the fo rum. · Speeds when vectored off procedure – A memo dated 10/21/2015 from Air Traffic Procedures, AJV - 8, has come out in response to a central service area request to clarify whether or not speeds on a procedure apply once an aircra ft is vectored off a procedure. In Mr. Kelly's opinion, this is not as clear as the author of this memo states as there are conflicting information amongst the different references and situations. There are a total of 7 clar ifications but two are of note: A speed restriction specified as a note in accordance with FAA Order 8260.46E Departure Procedure Program applies until: o Deleted or amended by ATC, or o The aircraft is vectored, cleared or deviates off a SID, or