FAA Cautions Pilots Against Unauthorized Procedures

Cptnchia said:
Delta has a department dedicated to creating RNP approaches. The RNP approaches we use in West Africa were built by Delta. They then “gifted” the approaches to the aviation authority in those countries for public use.
Click to expand...

Sorry I actually laughed a little at this, not in a bad way, but by "department" you mean 2 tech pilots (one that's been doing this with me since 2014 and one that just came on board doing this stuff earlier this year) that handle both day to day tactical airspace management issues, try to fly at least some of the time, and do RNP procedure design and a lowly performance engineer that does it on the side because he enjoys doing it (and the 2 tech pilots I work with are great guys, just in case this gets back to either one of them) in addition to my day to day duties. Since I don't report to flight ops I do it in my "free time" which is getting slimmer and slimmer, but I have been a part of the procedure design in to Africa you mention (was actually on the 767 we flew in there to flight val the procedure when we landed, did the PR thing, and then went back to Accra in 2012) and subsequently handed that over to the aviation authority. We designed it because the VOR really wasn't a VOR anymore since someone had stolen the inner workings and electronics years ago and as a good faith effort for our service there we fronted the cost for the design and then handed it off. I was also involved in our RNP procedure for the 737-800 at HDN we have, our JNU approaches and departure (all 334 pages worth of it), and we are currently working another RNP procedure for an airport that we should have final approval for shortly.

We did FOIA Alaska for their procedure since they own it and not the FAA. We received a 3 ring binder full of pages (still have it at my desk) that had been at least 90% redacted with a black sharpie on each page as that information was considered proprietary. We tried to play nice so the controllers in JNU wouldn't have multiple procedures with similar ground tracks (I mean how many ways are there to fly down the channel on approach and departure), twice as many waypoints for ATC and local VFR community, etc. Bottom line is we were told to pound sand so we went up there multiple times, talked to controllers, airport engineer, airport manager, etc. to make sure we designed to what they would like to see and we greased the skids and wouldn't ya know....it worked.
 
AUAeropilot said:
Sorry I actually laughed a little at this, not in a bad way, but by "department" you mean 2 tech pilots (one that's been doing this with me since 2014 and one that just came on board doing this stuff earlier this year) that handle both day to day tactical airspace management issues, try to fly at least some of the time, and do RNP procedure design and a lowly performance engineer that does it on the side because he enjoys doing it (and the 2 tech pilots I work with are great guys, just in case this gets back to either one of them) in addition to my day to day duties. Since I don't report to flight ops I do it in my "free time" which is getting slimmer and slimmer, but I have been a part of the procedure design in to Africa you mention (was actually on the 767 we flew in there to flight val the procedure when we landed, did the PR thing, and then went back to Accra in 2012) and subsequently handed that over to the aviation authority. We designed it because the VOR really wasn't a VOR anymore since someone had stolen the inner workings and electronics years ago and as a good faith effort for our service there we fronted the cost for the design and then handed it off. I was also involved in our RNP procedure for the 737-800 at HDN we have, our JNU approaches and departure (all 334 pages worth of it), and we are currently working another RNP procedure for an airport that we should have final approval for shortly.

We did FOIA Alaska for their procedure since they own it and not the FAA. We received a 3 ring binder full of pages (still have it at my desk) that had been at least 90% redacted with a black sharpie on each page as that information was considered proprietary. We tried to play nice so the controllers in JNU wouldn't have multiple procedures with similar ground tracks (I mean how many ways are there to fly down the channel on approach and departure), twice as many waypoints for ATC and local VFR community, etc. Bottom line is we were told to pound sand so we went up there multiple times, talked to controllers, airport engineer, airport manager, etc. to make sure we designed to what they would like to see and we greased the skids and wouldn't ya know....it worked.
Click to expand...

How do I design approaches for a living?
 
NovemberEcho said:
Become a controller, go to TERPS school, bank.
Click to expand...

^^^This.

In all seriousness, check out the course offerings from the FAA Academy: https://www.academy.jccbi.gov/catalog/CPNT?Category=Instrument Flight Procedures Development These classes are expensive and I don't know how many seats (if any) they open to general public but they might be available if you have the $$$

I hold a letter of authorization from the FAA allowing me to do ground and airborne based obstacle survey and simulator validation of PBN procedures on behalf of Delta Air Lines. Since my letter states that explicitly I can't do work for any other outfit or own my own without reapplying and receiving another LOA with that company explicitly listed. I do not have authorization to complete flight validation activities since I don't have an ATP but still get to participate in them, just can't sign my name on the dotted line. I am actually going to the 3 weeks TERPS school in late February in OKC as it's not required you have TERPS training to do PBN procedure design. There is a lot of overlap of surfaces and things so I've been learning on the go but anyone who is just getting in to it I would 100% recommend getting TERPS knocked out early on so it'll make your life easier.

I'm not an ATC guy but most of the people in OKC with the FAA are ex-ATC or military types. I was fortunate that I stumbled in to the situation I am in and owe it to a gentleman who really got the PBN stuff going at Delta to bring me in since I have access to digital terrain and obstacle data since I do the engine out procedure design for Delta. It was a nice fit and has continued for the last 6 years or so.
 
I will also add to the conversation that at least in New Zealand, all procedures are required to be published in their AIP, proprietary or not. Found out that little gem a couple of weeks ago when I was at ICAO for the PBN NavSpec Working Group meeting. The gentleman from the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) of New Zealand mentioned it as they are having this problem of non-qualified crews trying to fly these procedures (see Queenstown RNP approach as an example) since they are published in their AIP and are being put in the FMS databases so crews don't know they aren't good to fly them. The working group is discussing this type of issue, in addition to many others with the new draft of PANS OPS that is hopefully coming out in the next couple of years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top