A publication of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Issue link: http://natca.uberflip.com/i/961329
procedure designs. It is not within the purview of the PARC to stipulate when and where procedures are implemented, and with what design type, but the PARC stands by the design recommendations from a technical perspective. Training It was acknowledged by the Action Team that there will be a training component for new procedures or procedural concepts. The content of training will logically vary, depending on operation, aircraft, and mission require ments. For example, a fully equipped RNP (AR) aircraft and trained crew will have a different training scope than a general aviation pilot who flies predominantly for recreational purposes in VMC. This has been the case for many years and will not change. Flying an RNP to ILS or RNAV procedure will have a training component. Operators will determine the scope of their training in the same manner that they do today. Data access Part and parcel to a benefit analysis is the collection of data that is informative and essential to a benefit case. The Action Team unanimously agreed that the collection of appropriate flight trajectory and performance data in a timely manner is essential to decision making relative to certain procedural concept implementati ons. As such, the recommendation is that PARC work with FAA & appropriate stakeholders to facilitate access to data that will provide credible information for benefit and safety analysis. An example of the importance of streamlining data follows: During t he meeting, there were comments regarding fly ‐ ability of procedures that were based on anecdotal comments or based on data that could not be shared due to sensitivity of aircraft data. It proved difficult to make conclusions based on no factual data. The r ecent letter from ALPA included numerous concerns regarding advisory VNAV - - ‐ only capable aircraft. The Action Team discussed the concerns with attendees that fly aircraft using advisory VNAV on a routine basis. Their comments are summarized below: • Many operators have used advisory VNAV for years, and fly procedures today in that manner. • There is a training component today that varies between operators, and new evolutions of procedures requiring advisory VNAV could necessitate additional training. • Depending on the fleet type and variant, some pilots would need to understand the operational crew procedural differences. This would serve as an example of training that must evolve relative to procedural concept evolution. • Workload issues vary from fleet to fleet and should be handled within the scope of training. These and other comments noted issues, which as whole were not exceptional. Any new concept should include these types of considerations. Virtually all the safety related concerns noted i n the ALPA letter could be better addressed if there were availability of ample supporting data. PARC believes an appropriate process for obtaining data from organizations such as MITRE and ASIAS to