A publication of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Issue link: http://natca.uberflip.com/i/648546
maintained, so actual reduction of circling approaches where not needed, will accomplish the proper savings. • NSPP - Metroplex Procedures: DC will have their last 15 procedures published on 3/31 and this projec t will be done. Congr atulations Bennie Hutto (PCT). o DEN gets 110 procedure slots for publication and post implementation in 4 different publica tion cycles in 2018. o NY/NJ Metro procedures: These were added recently to include JFK, EWR, LGA and TEB to include RNAV procedures and 9 GLSs at JFK. TEB has an approach called quiet visual RWY 19 being published 3/31 that is a pending Cat Ex test to coll ect data for 180 da ys. This should be interesting. Publish it, use it and see who complains. • PCPSI: The latest meeting focused more on pilot issues. On VNAV and Operational Complexities pilots choose when to use VNAV and it requires setup and monitoring and they don't always understand it as much as they think due to the numerous variables. There are a lot of manual interv entions and mistrust by pilots. There is even more distrust on VNAV climbs because full up VNAV on climb does not compute the path li ke on descent, it just manages s peed/thrust control efficiency. Mental math is very variable on whether the pilots used it to verify the FMS behavior. Handling constraints on STARs didn't seem to be directly impacted by the type of VNAV and there are too many variables to see a pattern. Windows cause the most problems with the wider ones being the worst accordi ng to the crews they talked to. Vertical paths are much more problematic to visualize than laterals so are harder to maintain. o There is a differe nce between chart compl exity and procedure complexity. More advanced FMSs have no problem navigating complex procedures and/or co mplex charting but pilo ts can. The IPAD expanding the procedure view has proved problematic as pilots miss information in th e margins that are no longer being displayed. o In March, some simulator work will be done in Houston to test the flexibility of pilots being able to change the runway transition after the 10 - mile mar k, which would help both sides. We are trying to build th is flexibility in the .65 landi ng runway changes on STAR DCPs. SWA has abstained from the testing. o There was also talk of trying to harmonize our climb via/descend via phraseology with the new international proposed changes. • PBNRS: This was Route Structu re CONOPs briefing. This supports the VOR MON and addresses reliance on J - routes and V - routes and replaced with Q and T routes where necessary. Promotes point - to - point navigation where structure is not necessary. The current Q - routes (114) that have bee n implemented show very low usage and connectivity and there was no overall comprehensive plan. The T - routes (99) are mostly concentrated in the NE, ATL and Dakotas. Equipage rate is 80 - 90% to fly T - routes. The background to all this is the North Americ an Route Plan (NRP), Non - restrictive Routing (NRR) and Navigation Reference System (NRS). Eac h of these has issues with use. The current operations are any combination of route segments, NAVAIDs and waypoints when not restricted by automation. o PBNRS requ irements include high altitude point - to - point navigation infrastructure. The objective is to establish requirements and alternative analysis for efficient useable point - to - point system. Benefits include: Increased number of parallel route options through high density airspace ;