A publication of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Issue link: http://natca.uberflip.com/i/913906
On March 1, 2013, a memorandum was issued clarifying FAA JO 7110.65, Paragraph 4 - 7 - 1. The memorandum stated that Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) should issue a landing direction and Terminal facilities should issue the runway transition to be flown. In limited situations when the procedures are covered in a letter of agreement, ARTCCs may issue the runway transition in lieu of Terminal. Once the aircraft is established on the runway transition, due to the behav ior of some FMSs, runway changes and certain route changes become problematic for pilots. Prior to this change, controllers were required to vector aircraft to the final approach course when any runway change was issued once the aircraft past the point ten miles prior to the runway transition waypoint. This change provides limited relief from that requirement. The change requires controllers utilizing descend via clearances on STARs with multiple runway transitions to issue the runway transition or land ing direction in conjunction with the descend via clearance. After the aircraft has passed the point 10nm prior to the runway transition waypoint, an additional change relieves controllers from the requirement to vector aircraft to the final approach cours e if a change in runways is made, but does contain strict qualifiers. 2. Climb Via (CV) Procedures – Andy Marosvari and I presented a "white paper" describing that CV should not be a mandatory clearance only based on a procedure having both lateral and vertical components, but should be based on what works best for the facilities responsible for the safe, orderly, and efficient flow of traffic at that airport. CV should be the same as Descend Via (DV) with the procedures covered in a LOA or Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) at combined facilities and between towers and TRACONS, indicating what type of procedure would be used (maintain, climb and maintain, or CV) when aircraft are departing on a SID that contains both a lateral and vertical component . Providing facilities, the ability to determine what procedural guidance they will use through a LOA and/or SOP will result in additional safety and efficient benefits to the NAS, compared to the current state or that being currently proposed for JO FAA 7 110.65W, paragraphs 4 - 3 - 2, 4 - 3 - 3, 4 - 5 - 7, and 5 - 6 - 2. We provided risks/mitigations and benefits: We will continue to discuss this at future meetings, but we believe this is a viable change that keeps SIDS intended for CV as an approved clearance providing increased safety and efficiency while allowing greater flexibility with facilities being authorized to use "Maintain or Climb and Maintain" for SIDS that contain both a lateral and vertical component through a LOA or SOP, then allowing the departure contro ller to issue CV SID. 3. PBN to ILS Update – In order to provide information, you first must understand what occurred. On March 27,2017 ALPA national voiced concern over the removal of VNAV as a minimum requirement for future RNAV approach procedures. Sp ecific issues noted included Flight Crew workload increases during Closely Spaced Parallel Operations (CSPO), the risk of un - stabilized approaches will increase, contradiction to the premise that all runways will have a vertical guidance to every runway en d. (Recent reference to this paradigm is noted in the PARC produced PBN NAS Strategy 2016.), increased probability of Class B incursions due to lack of vertical guidance, previous studies that addressed operations using localizer only or LNAV only did not address the risk of Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT), and aforementioned studies were in a "simulator