Sorry, but AVN rules for us....

We design and develop instrument flight procedures (IFPs), publish aeronautical charts and digital products for air carrier and general aviation pilots for use throughout the United States and around the world, provide aircraft maintenance and engineering services, operate a fleet of flight inspection aircraft for airborne evaluation of electronic navigational signals and flight validation of ground-based and GPS performanced based IFPs.

Aviation System Standards - AJW-3


I am curious about the SAV plate, was this the eval procedure for Jepp with the FAA? as BDL was with Naverus?

I am with the other guy, why state RF? This is AR, so the users should understand the plate.

Do you know of anyone who has an OpSpec for less than .3RNP. Perhaps Fedex and Alaska, but I dont know of too many carriers that even have an RNP OpSpec, let alone a .15....

FtlopsOBN:

I believe so, but I do not know that with certainty.

Because a fairly large PARC working group was formed to establish RNP AR charting specifications for the United States. That was one of many specs that came out of several meetings.

With the present fleet of Boeing transports that can do RNP AR, the smallest value that can be approved is 0.11. I am sure at least CAL, Alaska, DAL, and AAL have approval to 0.11. Horizon (Alaska's commuter carrier) can do 0.30, and may be working for lower in aircraft equipped with a single IRU.

Some models of the Gulfstream are approved for RNP 0.10 provided the airframe has the latest mods and the crew has the training, and has completed the required number of practice approaches or approaches to 0.30 minimums. One of the members of our committee works for a G550 operator with 0.10 approval. The Falcon 900EX is either approved for 0.10 or soon will be.

The U.S. operators who fly into Quito are now using two hybrid RNP AR IAPs that require 0.15.

Thanks for the info...I havent been keeping up with US operations too much lately.

This may be why it is denoted in the navdata as it is...

In regards to the charts, I actually like to see the radius on the turn, I feel this may help the crew if there are winds to deal with.

(at least they gave the some decent waypoint names, not like FUGOV MORON)

an kinder FAA...how nice!

There is the EO tracks for Burbank, that was a real interesting approval process...(the controlling obstacle is the monument to aviation)...how is the FAA handling the EO procedures...just making each carrier submit their own for review?

FlightPathOBN:

I don't see how knowing the radius of an RF leg would help the crew at all with winds. As you know, the wind assumptions required by the 8260.52 are very conservative; so much so SWA has used historical winds at some locations in order to obtain slight smaller radii. With a bit of practice an RF leg is easy to fly, even with a significant wind component. Further, if the RNP value for the final segment is less than 0.30, many operators gain approval based on roll-steering auto-flight or, at least, roll-steering flight director.

Finally, the radius of turn is on the FMS legs page. Most RNP AR crews refer to the legs page more than the chart once the IAP is underway.

I don't know anything about FUGOV but the fix called MORON was called Morongo for many years, after the Native Americans of the area.


I don't know. That is beyond the scope of work I do. When I flew for a major airline and did some ALPA safety work there, I had the impression that no one at the FAA looked at the company's OEI procedures, such as they were. But, that was a long time ago.

Some of the procedures I design are 400nm long...winds aloft are important. The FAA model considers all winds as a tailwind additive..(ref table 1.3 8260.52) it does not use a wind spiral. Cross winds are an important consideration that is not accounted for in the criteria, and is important at some sites.

FUGOV and MORON are waypoints at PSP.

Great Stuff Aterpster FlightPathOBN :ok::ok::ok:

ooh can we see:8

Also I've been meaning to post this; but does anyone have a copy the FAA orders regarding " Holding Pattern Criteria"---I've found it once but it since disappeared sorry for being off topic---


Aterpster I too prefer the NACO charts to the Jepps...less visual clutter:)

From the source...

7130.3A - Holding Pattern Criteria - Document Information

Portal of Folded Wings Shrine to Aviation : Reference (The Full Wiki)

P.A.:

Download it here:

7130.3A - Holding Pattern Criteria - Document Information

There is also this policy memo for RNAV holding patterns that modifies pattern selection for RNAV HILPTs:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...20Patterns.pdf

I meant only in this isolated situation. Jeppesen charts have been a way of life for me. They can be tailored and they cover the world.:)

Dear Folks,

When a SID is designed , if no info concerning climb gradient, 3,3% is to be considered. If more climb gradient is required it will published in the plate. The regulators basically , are telling you "to avoid obstacles , you have to comply with it" .EO considerations are left to you.

Suposing that your SID has a climb gradient you can not comply with , your operator must have an EOSID available for the EO case.

Now , about the approach climb performance:

All app plates consider as standard 2,1% for ILS CAT1 and 2.5% for ILS CAT2 and 3.
If , to avoid obstacles , they need you figures above the standard ones , they will state that.

Your operator , has to provide you with one table with the necessary adjustements in case you can not comply with that climb gradient SE.
The same table we have in the FCOM 3.05.35 (airbus) , but including higher climb gradients (in the FCOM`s we only have to 2.1% and 2.5%).I flew in one company which had this table available for some airports with a more demanding approach climb performance.

Some fellows referred the low temperatures. When corrections to the DA have to be made due to low temps, actually we are adjusting your DA to keep the same height at Mapt. So in case of go-around you´ll be complying with very same "vertical profile".

My 2 cents.

A-3TWENTY

The implication that a SID can provide protection for performance losses with one engine inop is not always correct.

SID's do not take into account low, close-in obstacles in the Initial Climb Area. Those obstacles may be a threat to a WAT-limited airplane with one engine inop.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a...UObstacles.png


The case of low, close-in obstacles is one of the reasons that paragraph 7 of AC 120-91 states:


Procedure designers also have options to publish ceiling and visibility minimums for the purpose of avoiding obstacles within 3 miles of the departure end of the runway.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a...OU_TAKEOFF.png


However, the operating rules (14 CFR 121.189 and equivalent) make no exceptions for weather conditions.

Thus, reliance on a SID or published (all engines) Obstacle Departure Procedure may not adequately protect for the loss of an engine during takeoff.

`

The irony of it all. Micrometer management of the takeoff situation, with no "requirement" at all to ensure terrain clearance in a Missed Approach apart from the WAT limit. :confused:

Capn Bloggs:

1. The certification process dwells extensively on the balanced runway and the takeoff flight path.

2. Every flight has a takeoff. And, often above max landing weight; perhaps well above.

3. Missed approaches occur on a small percentage of flights. If an engine becomes inoperative during the flight, often the IAP with a missed approach performance problem can be avoided.

4. There is no "takeoff" flight path defined in certification for the missed approach flight path.

Related to both the takeoff flight path and the missed approach flight path is the lack of clear, concise guidance on how to get from the end of the takeoff flight path safely into the en route structure, especially in mountainous areas.

Do the designers honestly believe that increasing the vis requirement to 1nm (less than the length of a runway) is going to enable a satisfactory visual terrain avoidance manoeuvre after takeoff? In less than 30 seconds, you have to visually identify the obstacle, work out whether or not you are going to hit it, and then manoeuvre laterally to avoid it, all with an engine out?

Aterpster, thanks to this thread, I have a better understanding of what the rules are; I was just pointing out what I consider to be the irony of the Takeoff verses the Missed Approach.

Capn Bloggs:

First and foremost: the designers are not charged with designing a departure procedure to provide for an engine failure. That is solely the operator's responsibility.

Now, do designers provide a visibility requirement for close-in obstacles that they honest believe will aid in the avoidance of the obstacle? No, they are usually not pilots, and even the few that are have no heavy, or significant line experience. The flight inspection pilots are suppose to be the "check valve" but they are often checking off the numbers on a nice clear day.

Plus, takeoff minimums have a larger political component (and less science) than do landing minimums.

a satisfactory visual terrain avoidance manoeuvre after takeoff?

My thoughts might be heresy for some of the more skilful folk.

However, my contention is that visual tracking for terrain clearance OEI in a heavy is arrant nonsense. Even in a light twin it's more than a bit tenuous, especially SP.

With the typical deck angles, it just isn't feasible to wing it on the fly.

Furthermore, the climb angles are so shallow (typically) that the human brain has great difficulty figuring whether or not the aircraft is really going up, flying level, or going down .. other than by rigorous attention to the IF scan.

Hence my boring and repetitive comments that the takeoff and miss, OEI, have to be preplanned with detailed attention to intended tracking and obstacle clearance.

Concur, SID are all engine, and will virtually never protect you EO.

Exactly. This is why I am really harping on the engine out procedures, and especially, that the criteria missed approach is all engine. A coded engine out assures the crew that the procedure will have the obstacle clearances, turns, and destination already figured out, leaving the crew to aviate, not navigate.

oh yes!

Flight checks are required to be in daylight in non-IFR conditions.

Exactly, as I was pointing out, many of the EO missed procedures in AUS have climb rates near 70'/nm for twins, you dont feel like you are pushing away from the dirt. The climb rates dont require a terrain challenged airport to be a problem, and cell towers popping up everywhere...

Thread Comments:

This has been a great discussion from an ops and design perspective. Many times, when training pilots on procedures, there are very few questions.
Discussions like this really help in the training outlines, to explain the nuances of procedures, procedure design, differences, and with the coded procedures, especially EO, why it is important to use them.
I am going to add an entire section on performance engineering, especially EO, so that the operators can see the BCOP, etc data input/ouput, and the parameters that a procedure engineer uses when generating the profiles.

j.t.:

Spot on. If a pilot is "winging it" in day VFR conditions, he might just pick the spot where impact will happen a bit later rather than sooner.

Have you seen the Ron White skit in these regards...

Repeating my earlier question, what terrain clearance do you provide in the missed approach procedures you design, or do you put the "required" gradient on the chart?