# Presentation: 913749

## Department of Commerce Charting and Flight Inspection (Circa 1926)

**Notes:**
The beginnings of flight inspection as we know it today was with the installation of the low frequency Four Course Radio Range that were introduced in 1928.  The passage of the Air Commerce Act of 1926 resulted in the creation of an Airways Division within the Department of Commerce and six pilots were employed by 1932 as airway patrol pilots.

The recruitment of the new positions described their duties: “their chief duties are concerned with such matters as checking relative brightness and elevations of beacon light beams orientation of radio range courses and transmission of proper correctness of speech and transmission of weather broadcasts to planes in flight; operating principles and procedure of airways radio stations in carrying on communications with aircraft; reception of marker beacons and 2 way radio communication service from the marker beacon stations; the functioning of the facilities and condition of landing areas at Dept. of Commerce Intermediate landing fields and investigation work pertaining to all phases of aeronautic facilities on the Federal Airways System.

## Major Program Elements

-   National Flight Procedures Office (AVN100)
-   Flight Inspection (AVN200)
- Aircraft Maintenance & Engineering (AVN300)
- Aeronautical Charting (AVN500)
- Executive Transportation (AVN600 – Hangar 6)

**Major Program Elements**

## Instrument Approach Procedures... 
Eligibility for an Approach
Design Considerations
Approval / RAPT Process
Data Requirements
How to Submit a Request

- Instrument Approach Procedures...
- Eligibility for an Approach
- Design Considerations
- Approval / RAPT Process
- Data Requirements
- How to Submit a Request

## Eligibility...
Public Use
Reasonable Need
Two or more operators
(or)
Air Carrier

**Public Use**
**Reasonable Need**
**Two or more operators**
**(or)**
**Air Carrier**

## Design Considerations...Minimums...

**Most Restrictive of...**
**TERPS**
**FAR 77 Surfaces**
**Airport Features**

## Slide 6

## Slide 7

## Slide 8

## Slide 9

## Slide 10

## Approaches areConstructed of Segments

## GPS RWY 4

## Procedure Criteria

**Each Segment has...**
**Nominal Path**
**Defined Area about that path**
**Different Obstruction Clearance Requirements**
**Different Maximum Allowable Descent Gradients **

## FAR 77 Surfaces

- Change with Usage of Airport/Runway

- Define Obstructions to Air Navigation

## Environmental Considerations

**FAA Order 1050.1D (12/21/83) **
- Environmental Impacts – Regional Administrator issue
**AVN determines the “need for an assessment”**
- All procedures can not meet “categorical exclusion”
**Airports/Air Traffic Environmental Determination**

## Airport Issues

**Does the airport manager support the procedure?**
**TERPS 20:1 Obstacle surface clear? (Night ops)**
**Does the airport have the infrastructure to support the proposed IFR type of procedure?**
**Requirements come from Airport Design AC 150-5300-13, Appendix 16 **
**Runway/Taxiway separation **
**Appropriate lighting/runway marking/hold lines**
**Lack of appropriate safety areas**

## Airport Issues

**Airport Issues**

**Excerpt:  Approach Procedure w/Vertical Guidance (APV) Approach Requirements, Table A16-1B**

## Weather Requirements

**Altimeter Source**
**Aviation Altimeters**
**AWOS or ASOS**
**Remote**
**Weather Sequence - Only needed for...**
**Alternate MNMS**
**Air Carriers**

## 
ATC Communication 
Air Traffic Considerations
Missed approach and adjoining airspace issues
AT Video Map Updates
Controlled Airspace:
Airports not having existing Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP’s) require new airspace actions (Air Traffic & Rulemaking impact)
Airports with existing Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP’s) may require modification to existing airspace (Air Traffic impact)
Expanded Service Volume

**ATC Communication **
**Air Traffic Considerations**
**Missed approach and adjoining airspace issues**
**AT Video Map Updates**
**Controlled Airspace:**
**Airports not having existing Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP’s) require new airspace actions ****(Air Traffic & Rulemaking impact)**
**Airports with existing Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP’s) may require modification to existing airspace ****(Air Traffic impact)**
**Expanded Service Volume**

**Miscellaneous Issues**

## 19

**Notes:**
The Process,
Note requests can come from many sources.  Note the lead operator box above.  If the lead operator comes to the RAPT, or the local air traffic facility, we have to make sure the POI of that carrier knows about the request.  That is why all the arrows go both ways.  It would be foolish to spend the resources developing a new concept with an air carrier and not have the POI or Air Traffic involved, for it is POI that must give the air carrier approval for its use and if it conflicts with Air Traffic local procedures, it will never be used.
The same considerations apply when AT is working with the TARGET program at a local facility.  We want to be sure that AVN, AFS, and the POIs are involved to avoid user missed expectations.
This RAPT process  will give industry one stop shopping for both external and internal customers.

## RAPT PROCESS

- Establishes a process, using regional teams, so that all requests for procedures are considered and implemented according to established priorities and appropriate standards.

**Notes:**
All requests for procedures (IFR or VFR) should flow through the RAPT, regardless of the source

## Data Requirements...

**ALP or Engineering DWG**
**RWY end coordinates and elevation**
**TDZ’s**
**Survey likely required**
**Environmental Documentation**

## http://avn.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=ifp/index

**Notes:**
Example of the WEB site.

## Request for Development

**No special Form**
**Reasonable Need**
**Type of Approach Desired**
**Preferred IFR runway**
**Results of any feasibility studies**
**Status of Obstructions**

## Request for Development (2)

**Sketch showing VFR arrival tracks to/from airport**
**Environmental Documentation**
**24 item checklist**
**maps of noise sensitive areas if applicable**
**Noise abatement procedures**

## Request for Development (3)

**Source of Altimeter setting**
**Communication capability for obtaining & closing flight plans**
**2 copies of ALP or Engineer DWG**
**Survey results in graphic, tabular, & UDDF formats**
**Airport Data Form**

## Send to...

**Seattle Flight Procedures Office**
**1601 Lind Avenue SW**
**Renton, WA  98055-4056**
**425-227-2220**

## Slide 28

## Procedures Maintenance Activities

**PUBLIC OBSTRUCTION EVALUATION CASELOAD****Observed and Forecasted   -   (1987 to 2012)**

**Procedures Maintenance Activities**

## NAS MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

- How many surfaces are we going to protect?

**Depiction:  RNAV; ILS; RNP; VOR w FAF; NDB (LOM); ICA; GQS;**

**THE MANY TRAPEZOIDS**

**NAS MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES**

## Wide Area Augmentation 

**Wide Area Augmentation **
**System (WAAS)**

##    GNSS RNAV PROCEDURES

**LPV****	****	****	****Takes Advantage of WAAS Capability**
**  ****	****	****	****Equivalent to Localizer Lateral With Vertical ****	****	****	****	****Between ILS and LNAV/VNAV, HAT 250 ft & Up**
**LNAV/VNAV****	****	****Vertically Guided Approach With Decreasing ****	****	****	****	****Vertical Obstruction Clearance, HAT 350 ft****	****	****	****and Up**
**LNAV****	****	****	****Non-Precision Approach With 250 ft ROC, ****	****	****	****	****             Smaller Protected Area Than VOR, No ****	****	****	****Vertical Guidance**
**CIRCLING**** ****	****            Approach Procedure to a runway and then**
**	****	****	****Maneuver to Land on Another Runway**

## Lateral LPV Obstacle Clearance Criteria (comparison to LNAV and LNAV/VNAV) 

**Notes:**
This chart shows the proposed obstacle clearance criteria (lateral dimensions) for the new approach type.  For comparison, the LNAV lateral area is also shown, which is also used for LNAV/VNAV obstacle assessment.
The proposed APV criteria shows the dimensions of the primary and secondary surface.  These surfaces are identical to the lateral ILS (GLS) surfaces).
It is important to recognize that, by leveraging the ILS criteria, it is possible for the FAA to develop and validate the criteria for the new approach operation quickly, and to publish approaches that exploit the benefits by WAAS commissioning.

## Salem, OR

MNMS...
  400’ LPV (WAAS) DA
1100’ LNAV/VNAV DA
  900’ LNAV MDA

- Salem, OR
- MNMS...
-   400’ LPV (WAAS) DA
- 1100’ LNAV/VNAV DA
-   900’ LNAV MDA