A publication of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Issue link: http://natca.uberflip.com/i/862302
RNAV and PERFO RMANCE BASED NAVIGATION (PBN) Bennie Hutto (PCT) is the Ar ticle 114 Representative for RNAV and PBN criteria work. Mr. Hutto's report for the membership is below. AFS Criteria Participated via telcon regarding criteria to establish a problem statement, proposed solutions, and common expectations on schedule for the 8260.3 C STAR criteria revision team. During the telcon we focused on summarizing the issues, then developed a list of interests we have for any solution we adopt and then brainstorm possible solutions. The goal by the end of the telcon was to have a s hared definition of the problem, at least three proposed solutions, and an a greement on priority/schedule. We agreed that a small group was required to work the issues, which would include personnel from NATCA, AJV - 14, Industry, Flight Standards, and I als o recommended that personnel from AJV - 8 (NATCA/Management) being included since any change could have an impact of ATC requirements. Pilot Controller Procedures & Systems Integration (PCPSI) I was unable to attend the PCPSI meeting on July 18th and 19th as I was on annual leave, however Andy Marosvari (NATCA Proc edures Rep) was in attendance. The following information was discussed during this meeting: PARC PCPSI Obstacle Departure Procedures Recommendation The Pilot and Controller Procedures and System Integration (PCPSI) workgroup made a discovery in conjunction with its work on Climb Via Phraseology. There is widespread confusion for both pilots and controllers as to when an Obstacle Departure Procedure (ODP) (to include Diverse Vector Areas (DVA)) wou ld apply and the responsibilities for obstacle clearance for each group. Subsequent review of ASAP and ATSAP reports confirmed the confusion, and the ATSAP team actually put out a bulletin on the subject. In summary, there is an apparent disconnect in gui dance to pilots in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) and the guidance to air traffic controllers in JO 7110.65. The PCPSI devoted substantial time reviewing and understanding the current guidance. The issue is most common when an aircrew is assig ned a RNAV off - the - ground Standard Instrument Departure (SID) or conventional SID, and is subsequently given a heading to fly off the ground from the local controller that is not part of the procedure (effectively cancelling the SID). However, it is also c ommon for a facility to assign a heading off th e ground with no initial SID. By taking the crew off the procedure with the vector heading, the tower has now invoked Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 91.175 (f) (3), which states for Part 135 and 121 departu re operations: "…No pilot may takeoff under IFR from a civil airport having published obstacle departure procedures (ODPs) under part 97 of this chapter for the takeoff runway to be used, unless the pilot uses such ODPs or an alternative procedure or rout e ass igned by air traffic control." Although optional for Part 91 operators, it of course would also be a good idea for them. Assuming a penetration of the 40:1 plane by an obstacle for the departure runway, there are four ways to comply with all engine o bstacle clearance with this regulation: 1. Use the SID or another SID – obstacle clearance is ensured by the procedure and pilot is responsible for compliance (to include climb gradients)