NATCA Bookshelf

Pilot Controller Procedures & Systems Integration (PCPSI) Attended the PCPSI WG meeting in Melbourne, FL from February 6th-8th where the following information was discussed: 1. STAR Runway Transitions FAA 7110.65 4-7-1 DCP SRMP - The WG was reminded about the DCP SRMP being held at the FAA from Dec. 5-7. The background on this change is for Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARS) that provide course guidance to multiple runway transitions, pilots must be provided with runway transition information along with the descend via clearance. This allows pilots to program the Flight Management System (FMS) and fly the proper decent profile associated with the runway transition that was issued. 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 behavior 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 landing 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 course if a change in runways is made but does contain strict qualifiers. 2. 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. Specific issues noted included Flight Crew workload increases during Closely Spaced Parallel Operations (CSPO), the risk of unstabilized approaches will increase, contradiction to the premise that all runways will have a vertical guidance to every runway end. (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 setting" and did not accurately reflect what a pilot would experience in actual, real world operations. Mitigations were suggested (inferred) such as; consider further proliferation of ATC Minimum Safe Altitude Warning Systems (MSAW) to include altitudes normally inhibited today due to nuisance alerts, terrain avoidance warning systems are not available during non-precision approaches (specifically glideslope deviation alerts, ATC monitoring only provides lateral guidance for collision), flight crews operating non VNAV equipped

• Cover