A publication of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Issue link: http://natca.uberflip.com/i/872987
RNP value changes to demonstrate the origin of the limitation. A wide - ranging discussion followed which led to ideas on how to merge A - RNP and RNP AR criteria. During this discussion Barry Miller (AIR - 6B1) suggested the A - RNP crite ria uses a 3xRNP OEA (2xRNP primary with 1xRNP secondary), but he explained the design assurance levels (e.g. protect for major failure conditions) and the means to control the aircraft (FD or AP) are the same for A - RNP as they are for RNP AR ops limited t o using a RNP value of RNP 0.3. During RNP AR ops requiring RNP<0.3, the aircraft eligibility requirements raise the design assurance requirement to protect against hazardous failure conditions, a very distinct a nd often limiting requirement. Thus, Barr y suggested we may be penalizing A - RNP procedure design application since, technically, the secondary lateral OCS is providing unnecessary protection, penalizing deve lopment of some A - RNP paths. Barry Miller (FAA) offered to research this further and provi de the WG direct references from FAA ACs showing identical design assurance levels for application of RNP values down to RNP 0.3. Given the potential benefit, the WG agreed to have the chair ask the PARC SG for permission to formally add this effort to the WG's current work plan. RF.TF Concurrent Ops Action Review Mike Cramer (MITRE) had made some changes to the matrix of pros and cons base d on Jeppesen and NBAA inputs. The group reviewed the options tree and matrix once more, discussion led to the conclus ion that the two documents need a third to help in understanding them. The third part will be a write - up that states the end result of each path through the options tree in terms of procedures charting, database production and the resulting operations. Mik e was tasked with draft ing the material by August 11. The team agreed that Mike will submit all the material (with the third section) to the SG as final document for their review during th e next "Face - to - Face" meeting. In a follow - on telcon, TF overlays fl own to 10 - degree intercept with minimum leg length in 737 Max sim with no issues. Data being provided by Boeing and MITRE will provide results report in Sept/Oct. RNP to xLS RNP to xLS implementation at FAA was brought up for information by Barry Miller ( FAA). His basic point is that the FAA may require some constraints to implement the RNP - to - ILS operations based on the current PARC recommendation should an application of the new criteria require a final approach segment (FAS) length less than 5 NM. The W G's recommendation included support for a FAS as short as 3 NM, but the recommendation included the surety of "AFS discretion" since consistent aircraft performance inside 5 NM became problematic for "legacy" aircra ft and their FGS control laws. The WG rec ommended a 5 NM FAS for applications of RNP - to - ILS criteria. For RNP - to - GLS and RNP - to - LPV, installed with new avionics and new software, the shorter FAS (i.e. a FAS shorter than 5 NM) final provides nominal performance. Established on Departure Operati ons (EDO) The EDO Safety WG will be meeting on Sept. 26 - 27 at the FAA in Washington, D . C . to receive briefings on the HITLS and Fast - Time Simulations that were conducted at the T ech Center in Atlantic Center. We hope that at the conclusion of these meetin gs a decision will be made to move the information forward to a Safety Risk Management Panel (SRMP) and its accepted, so changes to the FAA 7110.65 can be accomplished allowing this new concept to be introduced into the NAS.