A publication of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Issue link: http://natca.uberflip.com/i/793416
It was discussed that some facilities are not applying the guidance required, but AJV8 needs guidance from PARC to proceed and PCPSI is drafting formal recommendation. STAR Runway transition guidance and runway changes a fter Runway Transition Waypoint The PCPSI has been working to revise current FAA 7110.65 guidance to allow runway changes while established on a STAR runway transition provided the lateral and vertical paths don't change. After reviewing the DCP w ith the proposed language and guidance, there was no opposition raised and the formal process to add the gu idance to 7110.65 will proceed. STAR Runway Transitions Currently two methods are used for ATC to assign runway transitions, one being assigning a r unway number (DESCEND VIA DRONE ONE ARRIVAL RUNWAY 21) and the second uses a landing direction (DESCEND VIA DRONE ONE LANDING SOUTH). Using landing direction leaves industry to believe the clearance is not explicit and requires use of a chart note. Industr y would like to have all runway transitions assigned using runway numbers as that is how their FMS are configured, but we still feel there is values using landing direction, but need to ensure all facilities uses the criteria as defined within FA 8260.19G when d escribing these on the charts. We are still working with the various workgroups as well as AJV - 8 and AFS to see if changes in language is required to ensure pilots and controllers understand what is to occur when landing directions are used. ICAO CV/DV Phraseology We have been receiving briefings from NAVCANADA, wh ich continues to closely participate and add value to the PCPSI. The interaction has resulted in information exchange, education , and increased harmonization of phraseology and procedures , however , concerns related to the "differences" between U . S . and ICAO CV/DV will start to emerge as different states implementing at different times and can potentially tailor the phraseology with no mechanism in place to track implementations and changes , which could set pilots and controllers up for potentially failure. The debate is underway between implicit vs. explicit clearances where implicit clearances reduce phraseology such as "DESCEND VIA FREDMM THREE" and explicit clearances add barriers of pr otection such as "DESCEND VIA STAR 4000." The PCPSI believes having IATA participate in the PCPSI could help, but still they still believe we need a more effective path of communicating issues with ICAO. PARC NAV WG A meeting was held on February 1st – Fe bruary 2nd in Phoenix. We discussed the following: RF/TF Concurrent Ops Action Team Prior to the meeting, the Co - Lead drafted an "options tree" for the team review and discuss. He had prepared a matrix of the options when the discussion points could be ca ptured; each option was discussed at length and information about responsibility, workload, pros and cons, cost/schedule , and constraints were captured. The discussions were wide - ranging, and the pertinent information was captured in the matrix. There is s till concern about the difficulty of designing turns up to 180 degrees using multiple fly - by