NATCA Bookshelf

document is expected to be out for mid-summer public review and comment. 2. RF/TF Concurrent Ops: Mike Cramer (MITRE) reported that the PARC Steering Group (SG) had a detailed discussion about the proposed recommendation, which resulted in basic acceptance of the WG preferred paths through the options tree with some actions for the WG to complete before it will be forwarded to AVS-1. The key agreement was acceptance of the ideas that: • FAA designs a single procedure, designed using RF, • If required by the location and traffic mix, FAA provides the necessary fly-by fixes to allow a TF-TF overlay of the procedure (in the notes of the 8260), • Database providers supply the appropriate version to their customers based on aircraft capability and approval, • The question of charting (single chart or two separate charts) may be taken up with other outside groups. During discussion, Andrew Riedel (Jeppesen) pointed out that there will be some work required in ARINC 424 to allow for two types of coding using the same name for the implementations. While possible to do, this could slow down the rollout of concurrent ops. The SG also asked that the WG provide recommendations for application at some target airports; the stated goal is to support RF implementation in the NAS while allowing TF only airplanes participate at specific sites. The WG discussion led to some possible locations; with both single and dual independent runway operations spanning the complexity of RF procedures. For single runway ops, Ft. Meyers, FL (KRSW) was suggested by Southwest, as they have an existing TF design (which has not been adopted) and it could be emulated with RF as well. Bennie Hutto took an action to investigate this airport; reporting back to Mike after the meeting that this site has a disadvantage in that the TF design has mentioned does not meet the facility requirements and would need to be amended as well as an RF version designed. Since the airport was under the Florida Metroplex project and that project is nearing completion, it would not be possible to have any changes accomplished at this time. Bennie proposed in his email that perhaps Norfolk International (KORF) or Bradley International (KBDL) might be better for single runway. Kansas City and Austin were suggested as possible candidates for dual independent ops, and Palm Springs was suggested as a trial to see if an overlay would even be possible for the very complex RF version. Mike will poll the group again with these updates to determine which we suggest in the recommendation. MITRE is also looking for airports with existing RF procedures so that the TF overlay could be tried at those locations. The WG also agreed that the concurrent ops idea should not be limited to approaches but could apply equally to SIDS and STARS with RFs. Gary P. commented that there is currently no FAA guidance on how to harmonize the two separate OEAs (one for RF and the other for fly-by) and this will have to be developed to enable this type operation. 3. Design Bank Limit for RNP<1: The working group agrees that the technical paper adequately addresses the redundancy in path following protection afforded by having BOTH and accounting for 99.9% tailwind AND a five-degree bank margin. The analysis

• Cover