FAA Cautions Pilots Against Unauthorized Procedures

RDoug

RDoug

Well-Known Member
FAA Cautions Pilots Against Unauthorized Procedures

Excerpt:
  • “Flight crews must not request nor accept an air traffic control clearance for a special instrument procedure without specific FAA-Flight Standards authorization,” the FAA cautions, noting that pilots have accepted and flown such procedures without FAA authorization or a valid navigation chart.

  • "Access to the actual procedure charts is tightly controlled, but some operators are choosing to fly these special procedures anyway," said NBAA director of air traffic services and infrastructure Heidi Williams. "We often see special instrument procedures at mountain airports . . . .
 
Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, the ones that do make it into the public databases are not really rocket surgery. The really juicy stuff is still locked up in airline proprietary databases.

On the other, I guess there’s the JerryW factor when you open them up to every average joe with a Garmin 430 so...
 
Shouldn't this be directed at controllers?

As written, isn't it saying that the FAA can't trust their controllers to say no if I request a special procedure?
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Thus...

For example, for a while the RNAV (RNP) approaches to Medford were in the 175's databases (they may well still be in said database).

Doesn't mean you can.
Click to expand...

I understand. I was thinking of somebody requesting and being granted a copy-cat "Delta" approach for some good reason, which I've seen.
 
Zondaracer said:
The LOC-DME 15 in Aspen came to mind when I saw this thread. A friend of mine who flies a PC-12 told me his plane has the approach in the FMS database.
Click to expand...
Yep, because lots of PC-12 operators have legit approval to fly it, and Jepp/Honeywell would much rather not do multiple nav data updates for the NG fleet.

The GTN and GNS series DBs also have a lot of specials in them.
Autothrust Blue said:
Nah.

Pilots should know their airborne equipment and limitations.
Click to expand...
“Regulate thyself lest thou be regulated upon”.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Thus...

For example, for a while the RNAV (RNP) approaches to Medford were in the 175's databases (they may well still be in said database).

Doesn't mean you can.
Click to expand...

True. BUT devil’s advocate here...

In some cases it can be pretty confusing. For instance, at my shop we are authorized domestic RNPs, but only one intl airport is listed in the Ops Specs for authorization required RNPs outside the US. Add to that the fact that we don’t teach the ops specs, and don’t expect our pilots to be well-versed in them, you can run into issues, especially as new approaches are created and aren’t listed in our airport guides and NOTAMs as “Not Authorized.”

In Cuba the RNAV approaches are called RNP, even though they aren’t what we would call RNP in the States. They are standard GPS approaches without RNP containment requirements, and authorization is NOT required.

Long story short, it can get confusing, and some of the responsibility lies with the company if a crew mistakenly flies one of those foreign AR RNP approaches.
 
I'm gonna be a witch in church. If a pilot is properly equipped to fly it, and doesn't screw it up...I don't have any problem using those procedures.

The weirdest special aircrew and aircraft authorization approaches I know of are the special LDA into JNU and the special GPS approaches into DUT - I'm sure there are more challenging and complicated examples, but realistically, if they don't screw it up I'm not super worried about it.
 
ppragman said:
I'm gonna be a witch in church. If a pilot is properly equipped to fly it, and doesn't screw it up...I don't have any problem using those procedures.

The weirdest special aircrew and aircraft authorization approaches I know of are the special LDA into JNU and the special GPS approaches into DUT - I'm sure there are more challenging and complicated examples, but realistically, if they don't screw it up I'm not super worried about it.
Click to expand...

Problem is by the time they discover they are going to screw it up they can be headed towards a mountain. Best to be properly trained and equipped, regardless of being able to “pull it off.”

Outcome bias is an enemy to safety.
 
ppragman said:
I'm gonna be a witch in church. If a pilot is properly equipped to fly it, and doesn't screw it up...I don't have any problem using those procedures.

The weirdest special aircrew and aircraft authorization approaches I know of are the special LDA into JNU and the special GPS approaches into DUT - I'm sure there are more challenging and complicated examples, but realistically, if they don't screw it up I'm not super worried about it.
Click to expand...
On the one hand, you’re right.

On the other, bubba gump with 300 hours and a 430W trying the LDAZ when it’s right at mins...or worse calling good but there’s that fog bank at the cut...oh wait...local weather phenomena don’t exist...oops, kinda went off the rails on that one.

It seems like there’s sort of two disparate issues here. First is aforementioned bubba part 91 shooting approaches in his database that he oughtnt be shooting (probably emboldened by the fact that these days a lot of the equipment preloads the altitudes and even VNAVs for you) because he doesn’t have the chart. Second is 121 operations with (apparently) inadequate training on what special approaches their crews are and are not allowed to do.
 
Roger Roger said:
On the one hand, you’re right.

On the other, bubba gump with 300 hours and a 430W trying the LDAZ when it’s right at mins...or worse calling good but there’s that fog bank at the cut...oh wait...local weather phenomena don’t exist...oops, kinda went off the rails on that one.

It seems like there’s sort of two disparate issues here. First is aforementioned bubba part 91 shooting approaches in his database that he oughtnt be shooting (probably emboldened by the fact that these days a lot of the equipment preloads the altitudes and even VNAVs for you) because he doesn’t have the chart. Second is 121 operations with (apparently) inadequate training on what special approaches their crews are and are not allowed to do.
Click to expand...


Well it's like this, I've probably shot the special approaches into DUT 100 times and the LDA Z into JNU at least twice as many times. There are no special equipment requirements for either just knowledge of the local terrain. For instance for the one into Dutch you have to be able to identify Amaknak island.

Now if Joe-Blow cirrus guy flies down to Dutch and decides to fly the GP-12 or whatever, if he's a part time PenAir or Little Ace guy then so what? He's been properly trained, just not for his Cirrus. I know this is totally contrived, but for something more realistic, say now that you're at Brand Y imagine they didn't have the LDA-Z? You've probably flown it 500 times. The legal answer is "I'd never fly the 'good' approach" but if it was in the database, and you previously were trained on it, why not? The training for the special approaches is mostly garbage anyway - why not make it public and let anyone use them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top