A publication of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Issue link: http://natca.uberflip.com/i/716610
issued for all radar vector SIDS and those procedures with published lateral paths that do not contain publish crossing restrictions. This will allow "Climb Via" to only be used when the SID contains both lateral and vert ical guidance. A DCP has been formulated and s ent out for comment. STAR Runway Transition Guidance – Follow up discussions continued about amending the language and requirements for the FAA 7110.65 and AIM based on the results from the Houston and Oklahom a City Flight Simulations. During the simulatio ns, we changed the aircrafts "Runway Transition" provided i t contained the same lateral and vertical path when they were within 10 NM or had passed the "Ru nway Transition Waypoint (RTW)." All simulations showed this could be accomplished by various operato rs, but since it places the pilots in a "heads down" situation and being closer to the airport , they woul d need time to make the change. There have been several airlines that have brought up issues, especially regarding the FMS and how any change s cause pr oblems because the FMS wants to recalculate the descent and speed onc e the change has been executed. We will continue to work the issue and hopefully a resolution will occur soon. STAR Top Altitude Charting – We raised concerns at the Aeronautical Charting Forum (ACF) concerning the criteria requirements contained within FAA 8260.46F about only being allowed to publish a maximum of two Top Altitudes on a SID when those SIDS a lso cover additional airports. The FAA and Ledo publishes individual charts for eac h airport, which would allow each airport to have a maximum of two "Top Altitudes" but Jeppesen combines these procedures on one chart. We believe it's much safer if each airport would have the SID published independently, so we will continue working with Jeppesen to understand the impacts of our request as well as AJV - 8 and hopefully could to a resolution soon. NextGen Integration Work group (NIWG) PBN We held our last meeting on August 2, 2016, but there is nothing new to report. Established on Departure Operations (EDO) Followed up with the FAA based on the information provided from the Tech Center, where they provided a few options on how to move forward with a c ost ranging from $300K to 450K. I was advised that funds have been allocated, but AJT will need to come up with a travel budg et before we can move forward. During our conversation, I asked if some of the test s could be accomplished at the facilities (A80/ZTL and D10/ZFW) to help expedite the process , as well as save money, but it will need to be coordinated and agreed upon by the EDO WG. At this point, we are waiting on the FAA in order to move forward one way or another . National Strategic Production Planning (NSPP) We meet every Tuesday and discuss the procedures that are scheduled for impleme ntation across the country , making sure they are moving through the process correctly and in a timely manner and have no issues to report at this time. AJV - 14 & Flight Standards Conversations STAR Terminus - We have been discussing the recent changes to se veral documents (FAA 8260.3C, 8260.58A, and 7100.19G) concerning crit eria for designing RNAV STARS. The changes for the STAR Terminus waypoint will have a direct impact on how we move forward designing STARS i f the language is not changed. Currently, the l anguage requires a mandatory altitude at the STAR Terminus waypoint for procedures that end with a track or heading even if the procedure is not a "Descend Via" procedure. RNAV Airways - Due to recent workgroups designing Q and T routes, discussions have c ome up about the width of these routes and the lateral protected airspac e criteria for RNAV ATS Routes. Under the current guidance contained within