Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Criteria
Bennie Hutto is the Article 114 National PBN Criteria Representative.
Background: PBN design criteria can have a significant impact to instrument flight procedures and routes as they interact with ATC operations. As a result, the Agency and NATCA agreed that having bargaining unit representation is essential in ensuring the success of the Agency’s PBN NAS Navigation Strategy.
Aeronautical Charting Meeting (ACM) We attended the ACM, which is held two times a year and is the primary method of adding and modifying charting specifications. It is divided into two groups, the Instrument Procedures Group (IPG) and the Charting Group (CG). The IPG and CG includes briefings and discussions on recommendations regarding pilot procedures for instrument flight, as well as criteria, design, and developmental policy for instrument approach and departure procedures. Please visit the ACM Charting Group website for information regarding charting issues and the ACM Instrument Procedures Group Web Site for information regarding Instrument Procedure issues.
Performance Based Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee (PARC) Navigation (NAV) WG: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, our face-to-face meetings have been canceled and we are conducting the meetings via video conference and during our last meeting, we discussed the following:
1. Obstacle Evaluation Harmonization: We received an update from Tim Lovel (MITRE) the analysis is on a short hold due to other TARGETS testing tasks for the upcoming TARGETS 6.2.0 build. The effort will continue and benefit from changes to TARGETS 6.2.0 as visibility has now been added to the tool. A more in-depth analysis will be forthcoming at the next full meeting.
2. Standards for Continued Guidance into Visual Segment: A draft recommendation will be drafted with the intent to present a consensus requirement for the design of such procedures to achieve consistency. The format for this to occur is like other PARC NAV EG documents where it’s presented to the PARC Steering Group. If the PARC Steering Group accepts the recommendation, then it will be sent to the FAA to be worked and it was made clear that this is just a working paper request and not the detailed effort that will be required to update criteria and guidance material in various Advisory Circulars, Orders, AIM, etc.
3. Advanced RNP (A-RNP) Concept of Use: Mike Cramer (MITRE) briefed that the action team had met, and they continue to discuss the goals, issues, and proposed solutions. Currently, the action team has not been able to agree on a single way forward. The principal goal that seems to be emerging is agreement that they want A-RNP aircraft to be allowed to fly to the RNP 0.3 line of minima from (RNAV (RNP) procedures. I requested to be added to the action team to ensure.
4. DME Facilities Used on RNAV Procedures: More discussions occurred regarding the use of DME Facilities being used on RNAV procedures and it was agreed that a draft recommendation would be drafted and used for discussion at the next full meeting. If its agreed that changes need to occur, then a formal recommendation would be written and sent to the PARC Steering Group.
PARC Pilot Controller Procedures System Integration (PCPSI) WG: Within the PCPSI WG, a subgroup has been formed to see if phraseology can be harmonized with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The goal of the group is to select and prioritize tasks (issues), to include Performance-based Navigation (PBN) and Data Comm being the core work areas, including pilot-controller communication and coordination, and global harmonization of phraseology and procedures with the initial emphasis on United States, Canada and Mexico. This will be a lengthy process, as we will not be making a change just to make a change. A thorough discussion and evaluation regarding the many variations of phraseology will occur to see if we keep the phraseology we currently use, change to ICAO, or even come up with phraseology that is different from both the FAA and ICAO.