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.
Florida Metroplex: Based on some Standard Instrument Departure (SID)designs and criteria waiver and/or approval letter requests by the Florida Metroplex, a video conference was conducting and included AFS-420 where information was provided concerning procedural criteria. 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, which occurred on February 3rd & 4th, we discussed the following:
1. Obstacle Evaluation Harmonization: During our meeting on March 10, 2021, Tim Lovell (MITRE) briefed the results of the analysis for the NSG Group 3 airports. Based on the obstacle dataset used, it was concluded that further analysis should occur to see what impact refining the obstacle dataset would have on minima at a smaller set of runway ends. Some concerns raised as to the intent of this effort and it was explained that the intent right now is to understand the impact that changing to the cylinder model would have on existing procedure and move forward toward adopting the cylinder model across the board if the impact can be minimized. That is why it is important to understand if negative impacts are typically from poorly surveyed obstacles or not. If improving the surveys would minimize impact, the result could be two-fold, adopting the more correct model for obstacles AND providing incentive to update the obstacle.
2. Advanced RNP (A-RNP) Concept of Use: The work performed by the A-RNP Action Team was believed to have reached a point where this topic could be brought into the full NAV WG for further discussions. However, based on comments and discussions, it was decided it needed to go back to a smaller group to ensure all the concerns and issues had been vetted. 3. Standard terminal Arrival (STAR) End Altitude Confusion: A briefing was provided by Gary McMullin (SWA) where he stated the criteria issue concerning terminus altitudes as well as ensuring the altitude is no lower than any Initial Approach Fix (IAF) or Intermediate Fix (IF) altitude has ballooned to affect other procedures such as those in California. He also stated that two additional areas have appeared, and the approach must start at the end of the STAR and the STAR must have an end altitude. I raised concerns and it was agreed that Gary would work with me as well as Jeff Rawdon and Gary Petty from AFS-420 to provide a working paper and bring to the group for discussion. FAA Order 8260.46H, Departure Procedure Program, Safety Management System (SMS) Review: A meeting was conducted on March 16, 2021, where we went over the changes being considered for FAA Order 8260.46H. After reviewing all the changes, it was determined that no hazards existed.