A publication of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Issue link: http://natca.uberflip.com/i/761055
The first week of November was spent with Ed Hulsey and Mitch Nugent (CSA FPT NATCA Rep.) while we worked in OKC on revisions to the upcoming FAAO 8260.43, which identifies key stakeholders and sets forth a process to prioritize procedure publications from a national perspective. AIS (AJV - 5) continues to be buried with all of the required routine review and maintenance of existing procedures, new procedures and amendments from n ational i nitiatives such a s Metroplex, VORMON, and ACRP. All of our single site PBN development also has to be scheduled for pr oduct ion and adds to the load. At each site we visit we stress the importance of eliminating any seldom used procedures and keeping the number of additional procedures to only what is necessary to meet the mission. Flight Check is also under an intense workloa d to fly all of the required navaids maintenance as well as any new or revis ed procedure that requires it. Disappointing discovery…only the four Challenger aircraft owned by the FAA are qualif ied to fly RNP procedures. Of those four, only one is designated for use in the contiguous United States. One is usually down for maintenance, one is dedicated to Alaska, and the fourth is overseas in support of the U . S . Air Force. It is surprising that the Agency has set forth requirements for users to reach RNP capa bility, but our own fleet has only four. None of the RJs or King Air Flight C heck aircraft are RNP capable. This means that our STARs and SIDs are flown by one aircraft and then the RNP procedures have to wait fo r a Challenger to be scheduled. This causes RNP procedures to regularly be slipped in production and mak es for a scheduling nightmare. To check even a modest single site project of a few SIDs/STARs and RNPs requires two different aircraft to be dispatched to the location and this usually never occur s on the same day. Facilities requesting new procedures need to make every effort possible to ensure FC Aircraft are allowed to complete their work and this is sometimes very difficult depending on othe r traffic demands in the area. I bring this issue up b ecause the Agency needs to focus on adding RNP capability to more of the FC fleet and this would enable them to visit a site only once and with only one aircraft. The second week in November was spent at the FAA Tech Ce nter in place of Bennie Hutto. A80 a nd ZTL are working on HITL scenarios to allow for reduced separation when aircraft are establ ished on diverging RNAV routes. If approved, TRACON controllers will be able to ship aircraft to Center frequencies sooner and aircraft will see a reduction in lev e l - offs during the climb phase. These efforts focus on whether TRACON and En route controllers are able to discern if aircraft are truly on course and diverging. If the concept is proven as applicable, the changes will be incorporated into the 7110.65 and allowed at othe r airports across the country. Both A80 and D10 have sought waivers for these operatio ns in the past and were denied. Ideally, these studies will prove the safety case and a llow these operations to exist. Many thanks go to the Tech Center St aff and the A80/ZTL c ontrollers who have been "scrubbin g" the scenarios for accuracy. This activity will continue in December, with final data collection being completed in early 2017. Final determinations and impacts to the .65 are TBD. Finally, we spent two days in Columbus to meet with and listen to perspectives from NetJets, the Columbus Airport Environmental and Noise Representatives, and the CMH Tower and TRACON. We've had a previous request from CMH and Southwest Airl ines for PBN work to commence. T he November meetings were held to bring in additional interested parties and adjust our Baseline Analysis for final approval from th e PBN Program Office (AJV - 14). We came away with considerable new information and the