New Simulation and Training Rules Due in December 2017

The November/December 2017 issue of FAA Safety Briefing (dedicated to flight simulation) indicates that new FAA regulations proposed in May 2016 will be published in December 2017. In particular:

With another new rulemaking effort in the works, expected in December 2017, the FAA proposes to allow pilots to accomplish instrument currency pilot time in a FFS, FTD, or ATD without an instructor present to verify the time, as well as allow ATD time to accomplish instrument currency requirements to be identical to the tasks and requirements described for an aircraft, FFS, or FTD.

The other big change for many flight schools is allowing TAA to be used for commercial/CFI training in lieu of aircraft with retractable landing gear. The new rules would define TAA as “including a PFD, MFD and an integrated two axis autopilot.”

You can read more about the NPRM published in May 2016 at my blog, here.

 

 

Advertisements

RVR 1800 with AP, FD, or HUD

On May 30, 2017, FAA updated Order 8400.13D to allow “CAT I approaches with a DH of 200 feet and visibility minimums of RVR 1800 [a reduction from the typical 2400 RVR value] at runways with reduced lighting, using an aircraft flight director (FD) or autopilot (AP) with an approach coupler or head-up display (HUD) to DA.”

This change applies to ILS and RNAV (GPS) approaches with LPV minimums. (GBAS approaches are also included, but those procedures are, at present, rare.)
RVR1800-SatNews

The policy update was announced in the summer 2017 edition of SatNav News.

Here’s an example of the RVR 1800 minimums on the chart for the ILS or LOC Rwy 20 at KALW (Walla Walla, WA).

KALW-ILS-RWY 20-full

This typical category 1 ILS approach has an RVR of 2400 and a DA of 200 ft (1394 MSL).

KALW-ILS-RWY 20-mins
But as the notes for the procedure explain, the # symbol next to the S-ILS 20 minimums means that RVR 1800 is authorized with use of a flight director (FD) or autopilot (AP) or HUD to the DA.

KALW-ILS-RWY 20-notes
FAA Order 8400.13D adds the following information about reducing CAT 1 minimums to RVR 1800:

  • To be eligible for CAT I approaches to RVR 1800, runways must have or be qualified for a Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 97 Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP).
  • Runways must have or be qualified for CAT I DH of 200 feet or less and visibility minimum of not more than 2400 RVR.
  • The runway must have a declared landing distance of 5000 feet or greater.
  • The runway also must have a simplified short approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights (SSALR), medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights (MALSR), or approach lighting with sequenced flashing lights (ALSF-1/ALSF-2)
  • HIRL
  • TDZ sensor of an RVR reporting system.

The order adds that:

Any existing part 97 CAT I SIAP which did not qualify for 1800 RVR due to the absence of TDZ or RCL lighting can be amended to include 1800 RVR visibility.

When 1800 RVR operations are authorized, FAA will update the approach chart. If RVR 1800 minimums are authorized before a chart is updated, a NOTAM will be issued which authorizes RVR 1800. CAT I operations to RVR 1800 will be added to existing CAT I SIAPS in accordance with a schedule established by the Regional Airspace and Procedures Team.

The ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 21R at KPSC (Pasco, WA) is another example of RVR 1800 minimums authorized for an ILS.

KPSC-ILS-RWY 21R

The S-ILS 21R minimums line includes two asterisks that point to the notes section, which authorizes RVR 1800 with use of a FD, or AP, or HUD to DA.

KPSC-ILS-RWY 21R-Mins
KPSC-ILS-RWY 21R-Notes
The RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 21R at KPSC, updated in August 2017, shows the RVR 1800 minimums applied to an RNAV approach with LPV minimums. On this chart, the # note reference appears next to DA.

KPSC-ILS-RNAV 21R-Mins
KPSC-ILS-RNAV 21R-Notes

New Edition of Instrument Procedures Handbook

FAA has published a new edition of the Instrument Procedures Handbook (FAA-H-8083-16B). You can download a PDF of the IPH at the FAA website here.

The IPH is a complement to the Instrument Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8081-15B), available for download here.

A summary of changes in the new edition of the IPH is available as a PDF in my Aviation Documents folder, here.

IPH-Cover-2017

FAA Proposes Cuts to Circling Approach Minimums

The FAA has announced the early stages of plan to evaluate and then cut the number of circling minimums published for instrument approaches. According to a notice in the Federal Register on October 6, 2017:

In early 2015, the FAA requested the RTCA’s Tactical Operations Committee (TOC) with providing feedback and recommendations on criteria and processes for cancelling instrument flight procedures. Among the many recommendations provided by the TOC were criteria on how to identify circling procedures that would qualify as candidates for cancellation. As of the beginning of 2017, there are approximately 12,000 IAPs in publication, and there were nearly 10,600 circling lines of minima. Circling procedures account for approximately one-third of all lines of minima in the NAS.

In its continued effort to right-size the NAS through optimization and elimination of redundant and unnecessary IAPs, the FAA proposes the following criteria to guide the identification and selection of appropriate circling procedures to be considered for cancellation…

Proposed Policy

All circling procedures will continue to be reviewed through the established IAP periodic review process.As part of that review process, the FAA is proposing that each circling procedure would be evaluated against the following questions:

—Is this the only IAP at the airport?

—Is this procedure a designated MON airport procedure?

—If multiple IAPs serve a single runway end, is this the lowest circling minima for that runway? Note: If the RNAV circling minima is not the lowest, but is within 50′ of the lowest, the FAA would give the RNAV preference.

—Would cancellation result in removal of circling minima from all conventional NAVAID procedures at an airport? Note: If circling minima exists for multiple Conventional NAVAID procedures, preference would be to retain ILS circling minima.

—Would cancellation result in all circling minima being removed from all airports within 20 NMs?

—Will removal eliminate lowest landing minima to an individual runway?

The following questions are applicable only to circling-only procedures:

—Does this circling-only procedure exist because of high terrain or an obstacle that makes a straight-in procedure unfeasible or which would result in the straight-in minimums being higher than the circling minima?

—Is this circling-only procedure (1) at an airport where not all runway ends have a straight-in IAP, and (2) does it have a Final Approach Course not aligned within 45 degrees of a runway which has a straight-in IAP?

Further consideration for cancellation under this policy would be terminated if any of the aforementioned questions are answered in the affirmative. If all questions are answered in the negative, the procedure would be processed as described in the following paragraph.

Flying without Paper Charts

I recently gave a presentation about flying RNAV procedures at the Northwest Aviation Conference. As usual, I asked how many pilots in the audience were using tablets like iPads in the cockpit. Most of the folks raised their hands. It’s astonishing how quickly the aviation community has adopted this technology.

Nevertheless, questions persist about the legality of “going paperless” in the cockpit, at least for typical GA pilots operating light aircraft under 14 CFR Part 91. Here are some key references to help you understand the rules and good operating practices.

The best background is in AC 91-78-Use of Class 1 or Class 2 Electronic Flight Bag (EFB), which explains:

This advisory circular (AC) provides aircraft owners, operators, and pilots operating aircraft under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91, with information for removal of paper aeronautical charts and other documentation from the cockpit through the use of either portable or installed cockpit displays (electronic flight bags (EFB).

The AC also notes:

This AC is applicable to instrument flight rules (IFR) or visual flight rules (VFR), preflight, flight, and post flight operations conducted under part 91, unless prohibited by a specific section of 14 CFR chapter I.

And it explains:

EFB systems may be used in conjunction with, or to replace, some of the paper reference material that pilots typically carry in the cockpit. EFBs can electronically store and retrieve information required for flight operations, such as the POH and supplements, minimum equipment lists, weight and balance calculations, aeronautical charts and terminal procedures…The in-flight use of an EFB/ECD in lieu of paper reference material is the decision of the aircraft operator and the pilot in command. Any Type A or Type B EFB application, as defined in [AC 120-76] may be substituted for the paper equivalent. It requires no formal operational approval as long as the guidelines of this AC are followed.

You can find further guidance on the FAA website here. And Sporty’s has a good overview of the topic here. For information about using iPads and the like on practical tests, see this item at AOPA.

If you fly IFR using an approved GPS navigation system, you can find additional guidance (and common sense advice) in documents such as the Operational Suitability Report for the Garmin GTN series navigators, published by the FAA in 2011, and available in the FSIMS system, here.

The following Type B applications were evaluated under this report:

(1) Chart capability is limited to Approach Charts, Standard Terminal Arrival Routes, Departure Procedures and Airport Diagrams. Access to the chart information is accomplished by touching the chart symbol on the screen home page. Scaling is accomplished by touching the plus or minus signs on the screen. Chart information is in standard chart layout, oriented in portrait view. It is possible to overlay an approach chart on the navigation display. Navigation Display Approach Chart overlays however, are always oriented so that North on the chart is at the top of the display. Caution should be taken when using this feature, as it can be confusing in some circumstances.

(2) En route charts are not available to view in the GTN 7XX series of units. Airways and associated navigation aids and intersection names are displayed on the navigation display but not in chart format. Because en route chart view is not available, operators will be required to have immediately accessible a suitable approved aeronautical information source of en route charts.

A typical installation includes a GTN 7XX paired with a GTN6XX. Since the GTN6XX series of navigator does not have chart capability a second GTN7XX with charts and an independent power source may be installed to provide the necessary backup. Another method of redundancy could be for the operator to carry an approved stand alone Class I, or Class II EFB device onboard the aircraft. Otherwise, a set of paper charts is required to provide chart redundancy.

In the case of a single unit installation, paper charts (including approach, departure and arrival procedure, airport diagram and en route charts) must be onboard the aircraft or an approved stand alone Class I, or Class II (with a suitable approved source of aeronautical data) device may be substituted for paper charts.

Use of IFR GPS on Conventional Approaches

FAA has published an update to the AIM, effective 26 May 2016, and it includes a big change if you have an IFR-approved GPS [i.e., a “suitable navigation system” as defined in AC 20-138 and AIM 1-2-3 (b).]

Now, if you fly a conventional approach based on a VOR or NDB (but not a localizer), you can fly the procedure entirely with the GPS, provided you can monitor (using a separate CDI or a bearing pointer) the VOR or NDB facility specified for the approach.

The new language is in section 1−2−3. Use of Suitable Area Navigation (RNAV) Systems on Conventional Procedures and Routes.

The summary of changes to this AIM update notes that:

This change allows for the use of a suitable RNAV system as a means to navigate on the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure (IAP) based on a VOR, TACAN, or NDB signal. The underlying NAVAID must be operational and monitored for the final segment course alignment.

The new text in the AIM is in paragraph 5 of AIM 1-2-3:

5. Use of a suitable RNAV system as a means to navigate on the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure based on a VOR, TACAN or NDB signal, is allowable. The underlying NAVAID must be operational and the NAVAID monitored for final segment course alignment.

This change is the result of a discussion at the Aeronautical Charting Forum in 2014.

Changes in AIM Effective 26 May 2016

FAA has published an update to the AIM, effective 26 May 2016, and it includes several important changes of interest to typical general-aviation pilots:

1−2−3. Use of Suitable Area Navigation (RNAV) Systems on Conventional Procedures
and Routes

This change allows for the use of a suitable RNAV system as a means to navigate on the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure (IAP) based on a VOR, TACAN, or NDB signal. The underlying NAVAID must be operational and monitored for the final segment course alignment. [For more information about this item, see the detailed discussion here.]

3−2−3. Class B Airspace
This change adds an RNAV Receiver as an option for instrument flight rule (IFR) navigation requirement IAW 91.131 (c)(1).

3−2−6. Class E Airspace

This change updates the definition, vertical limits, and types of Class E airspace. The change more accurately reflects Class E airspace regulatory information in 14 CFR Part 71 and more clearly states that Class E arrival extensions have the same effective times as the airport surface area airspace….

4−3−22. Option Approach
This changes adds verbiage advising pilots to inform air traffic control (ATC) as soon as possible of any delay clearing the runway during their stop−and−go or full stop landing.

5−2−8. Instrument Departure Procedures (DP) − Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODP) and Standard Instrument Departures (SID)
This change adds language advising pilots what to expect when vectored or cleared to deviate off of an SID.

5−4−1. Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR) Procedures
This change adds language advising pilots what to expect when vectored or cleared to deviate off of a STAR. Pilots should consider the STAR cancelled. If the clearance included crossing restrictions, controllers will issue an altitude to maintain. It also adds language advising pilots when to be prepared to resume the procedure. Since all clearances on STARS will not include Descend Via clearances, the word “will” was replaced with “may.”

5−4−7. Instrument Approach Procedures
This change adds a note to provide guidance to pilots regarding what to expect when clearances are issued by ATC to altitudes below those published on IAPs.