A publication of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Issue link: http://natca.uberflip.com/i/600489
may be designed using either conventional or RNAV criteria. ODPs are recommended for obstruction clearance and may be flown without ATC clearance unless an alternate departure procedure (SID or radar vector) has bee n specifically assigned by ATC. There is a ton of more information on this and a good report from one of the pilots from APA has summarized this if you are interested in reading it. · PARC Mixed Equipage - One of the main problems with mixed equipage operations is the lack of information available to the controller. An example would be: In the case of CAT I, II or III minimums you have to ask each pilot if he can accept the approach which slows down the system beginning with the enroute controllers. I n the future, the system should allow the information on equipment capabilities to be made readily available to the controller so that they are fully aware of the aircraft and pilots capabilitie s without playing 20 questions. o Airline or operator preferen ces will determine the equipage of an aircraft much like today. It depends on where they fly and the usual weather patterns. A good example of this is: § TEB with the CAT II ILS. The FAA is willing to install the system but how many companies will train th eir pilots to fly it? A survey was done of over 100 pilots that use TEB on a regular basis and given the limited amount of time it would be used, Approximately 30 hours a year. § Many of the TEB customers have said that they will NOT train their pilots to fly the Cat II. It is simply because of the costs associated with the initial and recurrent training requirements combined with the limited use but how would we know that, unless we play the question game. · PARC NAV WG - AFS tasked this group with c oming up with possible standards for RNP AR approaches in precipitous terrain. Currently, RNP AR approaches are not allowed in precipitous terrain and this group feels that they should be able to and apply the same rules that are used on I LSs and other RNA V approaches. There are instances where an obstacle penetration in certain surface areas would affect ILSs but not RNP AR, there by making their minimums lower. If the obstacle penetrates both, then the affect should be the same (precipitous correction). o If penetrates RNP and not ILS, then the mi nimums will be higher than ILS. The recommendation is to allow RNP AR in precipitous terrain without changes to surface area adjustments or to align with GLS and LPVs, which have different criteri a (the HAT cap doe s not apply). This recommendation will probably reach the steering group in 2016. o MITRE was tasked by AFS to analyze and provide data for criteria, which they are attempting to do with software called CSRS by drawing in the FAA order requirements to deve lop specifications and an engine to driv e it to get evaluation results. AJV - 5/AFS400 will enter into a Memorandum of Ag reement with MITRE to use this. They are developing a 5 - year plan to update design tools and criteria e ngines for all procedure types. IP DS wil l be AJV - 5 tool for approaches. TARGETS will be the tool for all other procedures (Routes, STARs and SIDs). · PBN dashboard - FAA PBN Dashboards provides automated, NAS wide