4/17/15

 

8900.1 CHG 394

Volume 11  Flight StandardS Programs

Chapter 12  Instrument Flight Procedure Validation

Section 1  Requirements to Conduct an Instrument Flight Procedure Validation

Indicates new/changed information.

11-312    PURPOSE. This chapter establishes policy for conducting Instrument Flight Procedure Validation (IFPV) of satellite-based Performance-based Navigation (PBN) Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP) for both fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft. This also addresses validation of special helicopter wide area augmentation system (WAAS) IFP. This chapter supplements and does not change the requirements of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 8200.1, United States Standard Flight Inspection Manual (USSFIM). It describes ground validation, preflight validation (including simulator evaluation and obstacle assessment), and flight validation. This establishes policy for the authorization and surveillance of IFPV evaluators.

Indicates new/changed information.

11-313    BACKGROUND. Historically, Technical Operations Aviation System Standards (AJW-3) has conducted flight inspections of all new or revised IFP, including an assessment of ground-based Navigational Aids (NAVAID), procedure flyability, obstacle verification, and airport/heliport infrastructure. The term “flight inspection” refers specifically to the evaluation and analysis of NAVAIDs and systems. The term “flight validation” refers to the flight assessment of an IFP to confirm that the procedure is operationally safe. Flight validation verifies the required obstacle clearance, flyability, Navigation System Database (NDB) ARINC 424 coding, design accuracy, and required infrastructure (e.g., communications, approach lights, runway markings, runway lights, charting, etc.) with all supporting documentation. Flight validation is the final step in the IFPV process defined in this section. Non-governmental service providers with appropriate FAA authorization, who follow the IFPV process, may design, develop, validate, and implement satellite-based IFP.

11-314    DEFINITIONS.

A.    Airborne Obstacle Assessment. An assessment of obstacles considered to be of impact to the IFP performed from the air, conducted in accordance with Order 8200.1. This assessment may involve the verification of the controlling obstacle, the evaluation of obstacles, or the identification of obstacles that are missing from, or not included in, the IFP. IFPV service providers conduct Airborne Obstacle Assessment during the preflight validation phase of the IFPV process.

B.    Area Navigation (RNAV). A method of navigation that permits aircraft operation on any desired flightpath within the coverage of ground- or space-based NAVAIDs or within the limits of the capability of self‑contained aids, or a combination of these.

NOTE:  RNAV includes performance-based navigation as well as other operations that do not meet the definition of performance-based navigation.

Indicates new/changed information.

C.    Authorization Required (AR). An authorization by the FAA to conduct Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approaches designated as “Authorization Required.” Standards and criteria for the development of RNP AR IFPs are based on a higher level of aircraft equipage and additional aircrew requirements.

D.    Autonomous Global Positioning System Recording System (AGRS). A positioning and recording system that is independent from (and that does not interfere with) an aircraft navigation system. The AGRS must be capable of the following: IFP storage, moving map display depicting the IFP course, and flight validation records including time and three-dimensional positions in space with a sampling rate of not less than 1 hertz (Hz). The AGRS must also be compliant in reference to the applicable Minimum Operational Performance Specifications (MOPS) for the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) equipment or system intended for route of flight or procedure. The AGRS system can be one stand-alone unit or a series of components connected together (e.g., laptop, GNSS receiver, etc.), as long as it meets the minimum specifications outlined in the current IFPV guidance.

E.    FAA Flight Inspection System. The position recording and analysis system used by the FAA; it is independent from the aircraft navigation system used in flight inspection aircraft. The FAA Automated Flight Inspection System (AFIS) provides sufficient assessment and recording capabilities for flight validation.

F.    Flight Inspection. The operation of a suitably equipped aircraft for the purpose of calibrating ground-based NAVAIDs or monitoring/evaluating the performance of the GNSS.

Indicates new/changed information.

G.    Flight Validation. The flight assessment of a new or revised IFP to confirm that the procedure is operationally acceptable for safety, flyability, and design accuracy (including obstacle and database verification) with all supporting documentation. Flight validation is the final step in the IFPV process.

H.    Flyability. A check or system of checks that ensures that the procedure can be flown safely, as designed. These checks may include, but are not limited to, acceptability of any deviations to standards, bank angles, airspeeds, descent gradients, roll rates, track lengths, workload issues, procedure complexity, runway alignment, etc.

Indicates new/changed information.

I.    Global Positioning System (GPS). GPS refers to the worldwide positioning, navigation and timing determination capability available from the U.S satellite constellation. The service provided by GPS for civil use is defined in the GPS Standard Positioning System (SPS) signal specification. The GPS meets the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) GNSS requirements.

J.    Ground Obstacle Assessment. An assessment of obstacles performed from the ground. This assessment involves the verification of the controlling obstacle, the evaluation of obstacles, or the identification of obstacles that are missing from (or not included in) the IFP. Conduct ground obstacle assessment during the preflight validation phase of the IFPV process.

Indicates new/changed information.

K.    Ground Validation. An in-depth quality assurance (QA) review of the development criteria and documentation of a PBN IFP. Ground validation is the first step in the IFPV process.

L.    Instrument Flight Procedure (IFP). A charted flight path defined by a series of navigation fixes, altitude, and courses provided with lateral and vertical protection from obstacles from the beginning of the path to a termination point.

M.    Instrument Flight Procedure Service Provider. An entity that provides IFP development services.

N.    Instrument Flight Procedure Validation (IFPV). The required QA steps in the procedure development process for satellite-based PBN IFP. The purpose of IFPV is the verification of pertinent obstacle and procedural data, as well as an assessment of the flyability of the procedure. IFPV is broken down into three elements: ground validation, preflight validation, and flight validation.

O.    IFPV Evaluator. The evaluator is the individual responsible for conducting the IFPV activity and signing the respective FAA 8260-series form. Each IFPV activity requires a specific designation on the letter of authorization (LOA). Evaluators must complete the FAA Academy Flight Validation of Satellite-Based Performance-Based Instrument Flight Procedures course or equivalent, satisfactorily demonstrate IFPV to an FAA aviation safety inspector (ASI), and have authorization from the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division (AFS-400).

P.    Obstacle. All fixed (whether temporary or permanent) and mobile objects, or parts thereof, located on an area intended for the surface movement of aircraft or that extend above a defined surface intended to protect aircraft in flight.

Q.    Preflight Validation. An operational review of the PBN IFP. The preflight validation step of the IFPV process consists of a simulator evaluation (if required) to test the flyability of the procedure and an obstacle assessment (either ground-based or airborne) to validate obstacle data. The preflight validation provides a preliminary review of the elements evaluated during the flight validation.

R.    Public IFP. An IFP published in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 97 and available to the general public.

Indicates new/changed information.

S.    Required Navigation Performance (RNP). A statement of the 95 percent navigation accuracy performance that meets a specified value for a particular phase of flight or flight segment. This includes and incorporates associated on-board performance monitoring and alerting features to notify the pilot when the RNP for a particular phase or segment of a flight is not performing at the correct accuracy level. Refer to the current edition of RTCA DO-236, Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards: Required Navigation Performance for Area Navigation.

T.    Special IFP. An IFP approved by the FAA in accordance with specific guidelines but not published in 14 CFR part 97 for public use.

U.    Validation. The evaluator verifies whether a data element or a set of data elements is acceptable for its purpose.

V.    Verification. The activity whereby the evaluator checks the current value of a data element against the value originally supplied.

11-315    RELATED PUBLICATIONS (current editions).

A.    Regulations. Title 14 CFR Part 97.

B.    Reading Material. These publications address IFP development and implementation.

1)    Advisory Circular (AC) 90-101, Approval Guidance for RNP Procedures with AR.
Indicates new/changed information.
2)    AC 90-113, Instrument Flight Procedure Validation (IFPV) of Satellite-based Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP).
Indicates new/changed information.
3)    Order 8200.1, United States Standard Flight Inspection Manual.
4)    Order 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS).
5)    Order 8260.19, Flight Procedures and Airspace.light Procedures and Airspace.
Indicates new/changed information.
6)    Order 8260.42, United States Standard for Helicopter Area Navigation (RNAV).
7)    Order 8260.46, Departure Procedures (DP) Program.
8)    Order 8260.58, United States Standard for Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Instrument Procedure Design.
9)    Order 8260.60, Special Instrument Procedures.
10)    RTCA DO-236, Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards: Required Navigation Performance for Area Navigation.

11-316    IFPV OVERVIEW.

Indicates new/changed information.

A.    Process. IFPV involves several distinct elements: ground validation, preflight validation (including simulator evaluation and obstacle assessment), and flight validation.

Indicates new/changed information.

B.    Authorization. The FAA must authorize IFPV service providers prior to conducting IFPV activities. Approval to conduct IFPV activities consists of classroom training and onsite observation of IFPV activities completed in accordance with the company’s IFPV manual. Specific FAA authorization is required for simulator evaluation, ground obstacle assessment, airborne obstacle assessment, and flight validation. See paragraph 11‑324 for examples of an IFPV LOA.

C.    Notification of Planned IFPV Activity. Prior to conducting any IFPV activity, the service provider must notify the Flight Procedure Implementation and Oversight Branch (AFS-460) by e-mail (AFS460IFPV@faa.gov). Upon receipt of the e-mail, AFS-460 will notify the operator of the level of oversight for that activity. The operator must not perform the activity without AFS-460 collaboration. The operator must notify AFS-460 at least 15 business days prior to the intended activity date to allow for oversight planning.

Indicates new/changed information.

D.    Record Data Format. The service provider must electronically submit records to AFS-460. The preferred format is electronic transmittal of a Terminal Area Route Generation Evaluation and Traffic Simulation (TARGETS) project file and other required documentation.

E.    Data Accuracy and Sources. Satellite-based PBN IFP, RNAV (GPS), RNAV (RNP), and WAAS require highly accurate data based on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84). This requires a very high integrity of all survey data used in the flight procedure and the NDB used by the aircraft. It is mandatory that the service provider maintain an appropriate QA system covering all domains of data collection (surveys), processing, publication, and NDB development (see ICAO annexes 4, 11, 14, and 15). Input errors, particularly within the Final Approach Segment (FAS) data block, can result in significant changes to the flightpath in relation to the runway/point in space (PinS). The validation must ensure the use of correct data for a valid flight procedure analysis. The service provider must document sources of terrain, obstacle, and aeronautical data used (including the source, type, date, version, and resolution of the data) in accordance with the current edition of Order 8260.19.

Indicates new/changed information.

F.    Library. The service provider must maintain a current copy of all relevant FAA documents, FAA‑accepted IFPV operations manuals, publications, and correspondence pertinent to IFPV. The service provider may maintain its libraries in electronic format.

Indicates new/changed information.

G.    Records. The service provider must maintain all records listed below for two years after the cancellation of an IFP and must make them available to the FAA for audit purposes on request. FAA AJW flight inspection recordkeeping policy meets the requirements listed below.

NOTE:  The items below must be retained for five years after the completion of the investigation when the instrument procedure is of possible significance in an aircraft accident.

1)    Obstacle assessment records.
2)    Detailed survey reports.
Indicates new/changed information.
3)    AGRS recordings from ground and/or airborne obstacle assessment and flight validation activities. Refer to AC 90-113 for details.
4)    For helicopter IFP utilizing the FAS data block (WAAS), a documented analysis of the FAS data in relation to the landing threshold point or desired PinS for course error, glide path error, threshold crossing height (TCH) error, and the Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC). Fixed-wing WAAS IFP is not addressed in this chapter.
Indicates new/changed information.
5)    Current editions of Form 8260-30.1, Simulator Validation Checklist; Form 8260-30.2, Obstacle Assessment Checklist; and Form 8260-30.3, Flight Validation Checklist, for all IFPV activities.
6)    Personnel training records related to IFPV.
7)    Individual and company IFPV LOAs.
8)    Any additional items listed in the IFPV service provider’s operations manual.

Figure 11-29.  Instrument Flight Procedures Validation Process Flow

Figure 11-29. Instrument Flight Procedures Validation Process Flow

NOTE:  Some of the steps may not be required or may be accomplished in a different order.

11-317    SERVICE PROVIDER REQUIREMENTS. The organization must have AFS-460-accepted guidance (e.g., operations manual) describing the processes and policies the service provider will follow when conducting IFPV activities. The guidance must, at a minimum, contain the following information:

A.    General Information.

1)    Contact person/persons in charge and physical address of all saved records.
2)    List of individuals authorized to conduct IFPV and their relevant endorsements (simulator evaluation, ground obstacle assessment, airborne obstacle assessment, and flight validation).
3)    Process for periodic internal audits.
4)    Process for communicating and coordinating with appropriate FAA offices to include the transfer of data, forms, and documents.
5)    Process for acquiring and maintaining regulatory guidance material associated with each authorized function, to include processes for maintaining the currency of all reference material.
6)    Process to ensure that all personnel authorized to perform IFPV activities are current and trained in accordance with current IFPV guidance.
7)    Training attendance, including recurrent training documentation.
8)    Process for ensuring that all IFPV processes have FAA approval and are current.
9)    Procedures for revising the operations manual, including a revision tracking system.

B.    Ground Validation Information. PBN IFP QA review process (outline internal review process).

C.    Preflight Validation Information.

1)    Simulator evaluation process.
a)    QA review process of the flight management system (FMS) NDB for correct coding of the PBN or WAAS IFP (outline process used to compare and ensure matching data).
Indicates new/changed information.
b)    Satellite-based RNAV simulator use requirements (i.e., methodology as to when a simulator check would be completed or required).
2)    Obstacle assessment process, to include accuracy codes achievable using company-specific equipment and processes.
a)    Ground obstacle assessment information (if applicable) containing:

1.    Complete equipment list (hardware) to include type, make, and model (e.g., “GPS Receiver—Globalsat BU-353”).

2.    Complete equipment list (software) to include software manufacturer, title, version, and purpose (e.g., “Magellan MobileMapper Office, release 3.40a”) used to post process recorded GPS data.

3.    Step-by-step process for obstacle verification.

4.    Process for ensuring that the evaluator documents any new or different obstacles identified during ground obstacle assessment and that the developer reevaluates the IFP, if necessary.

b)    Airborne obstacle assessment information (if applicable) containing:

1.    Complete equipment list (hardware) to include type, make, and model (e.g., “GPS Receiver—Globalsat BU-353”).

2.    Complete equipment list (software) to include software manufacturer, title, version, and purpose (e.g., CSSI, TARGETS Version 4.8), used for in-flight referencing of controlling obstacles and recording obstacle assessment tracks.

3.    Step-by-step process for obstacle verification.

4.    Company-specific Obstacle Evaluation Area (OEA) evaluation processes, if applicable.

5.    Process for ensuring that the evaluator documents any new or different obstacles identified during an airborne obstacle assessment and that the developer reevaluates the IFP, if necessary.

6.    Process for briefing pilots, without IFPV authorization, on airborne obstacle assessment mission (e.g., briefing the pilot of a rented helicopter). See paragraph 11-323.

D.    Flight Validation Information.

1)    QA review process of IFP Chart, FAA 8260-series forms comparison, and NDB (outline process used to compare and ensure matching data).
2)    Complete flight validation equipment list (hardware) (e.g., “GPS Receiver—Globalsat BU‑353”).
3)    Complete equipment list (software) to include software manufacturer, title, version, and purpose (e.g., TARGETS Version 4.8) used for recording flight tracks.
4)    Process for addressing issues concerning obstacles or flyability discovered during flight validation.
5)    Process for assessing airport/heliport infrastructure.

11-318    SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SMS)/OPERATIONAL SAFETY ASSESSMENT (OSA). The SMS/OSA must define the safety policies, processes, and practices for managing all aspects of all IFPV processes. The SMS/OSA must include the following elements:

·    Definition of the organization’s safety objectives;

·    Ability to present the safety situation in respect to compliance with all relevant FAA, internal, and other safety-related standards;

·    Definition of the safety accountabilities of all personnel;

·    Continual review process for effectiveness by all personnel;

·    Process for staff to identify safety hazards or concerns and to suggest methods for the enhancement of safety;

·    Established internal procedures for the communication and processing of safety concerns within the organization as they relate to IFPV;

·    Definition of the interface arrangements between internal groups of the organization as they relate to IFPV;

·    Compliance process applicable to all personnel of the organization;

·    Safety hazard/risk analysis and risk control/mitigation assessment in accordance with an established methodology endorsed by the FAA;

·    Quality Management System (QMS) based on those elements of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001 relevant to IFPV; and

·    Oversight and audit program.

11-319    IFPV PROCESS. IFPV consists of three elements: ground validation, preflight validation, and flight validation.

Indicates new/changed information.

A.    Ground Validation. Ground validation is a review of the entire IFP package. The purpose is to identify areas with the potential to impact the flyability and safety of the IFP (e.g., ARINC 424 coding errors, obstacles, OE/AAA and charting). The evaluator should address issues identified during the ground validation phase prior to the preflight validation phase.

B.    Preflight Validation. Preflight validation will include an obstacle assessment and may include a simulator evaluation. Simulator evaluations are an effective means to evaluate performance at the procedure design limits. They ensure aircraft systems can fly combinations of vertical profiles, altitude, speed restrictions, and bank angles. Additionally, desktop simulators can be a valuable tool to verify coding and evaluate basic flyability. Although encouraged for all fixed wing procedures, simulator evaluations are required whenever there is a request for a waiver or request for Flight Standards (AFS) approval for deviations from standard criteria. The evaluator must conduct required simulator evaluations in an FAA-qualified level “C” or level “D” flight simulator capable of flying the procedure. The evaluator should verify and document all areas listed on FAA Form 8260-30.1, Simulator Validation Checklist. The obstacle assessment verifies the height and location of the documented controlling obstacle for each segment of the IFP. The evaluator must perform the ground and/or airborne obstacle assessment ensuring, at a minimum, the requirements of Order 8200.1 are met. Obstacle assessment must be documented on FAA Form 8260-30.2, Obstacle Assessment Checklist. The evaluator should address any issue identified during the preflight validation phase prior to flight validation. Refer to AC 90-113 for details.

NOTE:  For special PBN IFP designed for a specific make, model, and series (M/M/S) and specific FMS, software part number, software version, and revision, the evaluator must conduct the simulator evaluation in an FAA-qualified level “C” or level “D” simulator with the exact configuration specified.

Indicates new/changed information.

C.    Flight Validation. Flight validation is the final in-flight assessment of an IFP to confirm that the procedure is operationally safe. Flight validation verifies the required obstacle clearance, flyability, NDB ARINC 424 coding, design accuracy, and required infrastructure (e.g., communications, approach lights, runway markings, runway lights, charting, etc.) with all supporting documentation. The evaluator must perform the flight validation in accordance with Order 8200.1 and must document it on FAA Form 8260-30.3, Flight Validation Checklist. Refer to AC 90-113 for details.

11-320    REQUIREMENTS.

A.    Preflight Validation.

1)    Personnel.
a)    Simulator Evaluation (fixed-wing only). In order to conduct a simulator evaluation, the designated evaluator must hold an LOA for simulator evaluation. Although preferred, there is no requirement for the LOA holder to be a pilot. However, if the simulator evaluator is not a pilot, an experienced pilot must accompany the LOA holder to provide an accurate assessment of flyability. For special IFP designed for a particular airframe, FMS, software part number, software version, and revision, the pilot assisting in that evaluation must have experience in that particular aircraft and its flight guidance and navigation system.
b)    Ground Obstacle Assessment. In order to conduct a ground obstacle assessment, the designated evaluator must hold an LOA for ground obstacle assessment.
c)    Airborne Obstacle Assessment. In order to conduct an airborne obstacle assessment, the designated evaluator must hold an LOA for airborne obstacle assessment. If the designated evaluator is not also the pilot in command (PIC), the evaluator must provide an AFS-460-approved mission brief to the pilot. See paragraph 11-323 for example.
2)    Weather. The evaluator must conduct airborne obstacle assessments during day visual meteorological conditions (VMC) with sufficient in-flight ceiling and visibility to accomplish the assessment of obstacles.
Indicates new/changed information.

NOTE:  Preflight validation must not be conducted during revenue operations.

B.    Flight Validation.

1)    Personnel. The minimum crew complement is two pilots.
a)    The PIC must be:

·    Current and qualified in the appropriate aircraft and proficient with the specific FMS and associated software part number, software version, and revision; and

·    Approved by AFS-400 or has received an AFS-460-approved brief.

b)    The second in command (SIC) (if required) must be:

·    Current and qualified in the appropriate aircraft and proficient with the specific FMS and associated software part number, software version, and revision; and

·    Approved by AFS-400 or has received an AFS-460-approved brief.

c)    The flight validation evaluator, although not required to be a crewmember, may act as the PIC or SIC in accordance with the requirements above. The flight validation evaluator must be either:

·    An FAA ASI (Operations) approved by AFS-460;

·    An individual with similar pilot qualifications who has completed AFS-460-approved training (see paragraph 11-321) and received an LOA from AFS-400; or

Indicates new/changed information.

·    A current and qualified AJW Airspace System Inspection Pilot (ASIP).

2)    Weather. The evaluator must conduct flight validation during day VMC (except as noted in subparagraph 11-320B2)a) below) with sufficient in-flight ceiling and visibility to accomplish the assessment of obstacles and determine that the procedure flight track reflects the IFP design.
Indicates new/changed information.
a)    The evaluator may fly portions of the procedure above a published minimum instrument flight rules (IFR) altitude (e.g., high-level portions of Standard Instrument Departures (SID) or Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STAR)) at night, in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), or both.
Indicates new/changed information.
b)    A night evaluation is required when an IFR procedure is developed to an IFR or visual flight rules (VFR) airport/heliport with no prior night IFR service. An evaluation is also required when a procedure is developed to a newly constructed runway or when an existing procedure serves a runway that has been lengthened or shortened. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine the adequacy of airport/heliport infrastructure to include airport/heliport lighting systems prior to authorizing night minimums. Conduct all night evaluations during VMC with sufficient in-flight ceiling and visibility to assess the airport/heliport infrastructure.

NOTE:  Flight validation must not be conducted during revenue operations.

Indicates new/changed information.
3)    Data Collection System. When conducting flight validation of WAAS IFP, the evaluator will utilize an in-flight data collection system that enables in-flight or post-flight analysis to validate that FAS data elements for course alignment, TCH, and glide path angle are providing navigation guidance, as designed, to the physical runway threshold or PinS. The system must be capable of performing the necessary evaluations in a documented, quantitative fashion.

11-321    IFPV EVALUATOR TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.

A.    Initial Training Requirements for IFPV Authorization. To receive an LOA for any IFPV activity, an evaluator applicant must first attend an AFS-460-approved training program that includes the following:

1)    Familiarity with the PBN IFP design process and requirements for PBN operations. Current editions of the following FAA documents outline the requirements for PBN operations:
a)    AC 90-100, U.S. Terminal and En Route Area Navigation (RNAV) Operations.
b)    AC 90-101; Approved Guidance Procedures for RNP Procedures with AR.
c)    AC 90-105, Approval Guidance for RNP Operations and Barometric Vertical Navigation in the U.S. National Airspace System.
Indicates new/changed information.
d)    AC 90-113, Instrument Flight Procedure Validation (IFPV) of Satellite-based Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP).
e)    AC 120-40, Airplane Simulator Qualification.
f)    AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design.
g)    AC 150/5300-16, General Guidance and Specifications for Aeronautical Surveys: Establishment of Geodetic Control and Submission to the National Geodetic Survey.
Indicates new/changed information.
h)    AC 150/5300-17, Standards for Using Remote Sensing Technologies in Airport Surveys.
i)    AC 150/5300-18, General Guidance and Specifications for Submission of Aeronautical Surveys to NGS: Field Data Collection and Geographic Information System (GIS) Standards.
Indicates new/changed information.
j)    Order JO 7100.9, Standard Terminal Arrival Program and Procedures.
k)    Order 8200.1, United States Standard Flight Inspection Manual.
l)    Order 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS).
Indicates new/changed information.
m)    Order 8260.19, Flight Procedures and Airspaces.light Procedures and Airspaces.
n)    Order 8260.42, United States Standard for Helicopter Area Navigation (RNAV).
o)    Order 8260.46, Departure Procedure (DPs) Program.
p)    Order 8260.58, United States Standard for Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Instrument Procedure Design.
q)    Order 8260.60, Special Instrument Procedures.
2)    Knowledge of the procedure design criteria relevant to the type of IFP for which the individual has authorization to conduct as either PIC or evaluator.
3)    Training in the operation and post processing of data (only for flight validation crews).
Indicates new/changed information.
4)    Process of completing FAA Forms 8260-30.1, 8260-30.2, and 8260-30.3 and the process for providing feedback to the procedure designer.
5)    Flight validation requirements.
6)    Procedure packet review.
7)    Requirements, techniques, and considerations for verifying that the navigation data to be published, as well as that used in the design of the procedure, is correct.
8)    Techniques and considerations for validation of obstacle data.
Indicates new/changed information.
9)    Airport/heliport infrastructure assessment.
10)    Communications coverage.
11)    Flyability/human factors assessment.
12)    Use of automation tools and simulators or ground validation.
13)    Charting considerations.
14)    Operational factors.
15)    Supervised on-the-job training (OJT) adequate to achieve the required level of competency in obstacle assessment techniques, simulator evaluation, and flight validation.
Indicates new/changed information.

B.    Recurrent Training Requirements. In order to exercise the privileges of the LOA,each evaluator must have performed an evaluation with an approved ASI during the previous 24 calendar-months. If the 24 calendar‑months have been exceeded, an approved ASI must accompany the evaluator on the next scheduled activity. Recurrent training will be documented on the IFPV Evaluator Check Record when AFS-460 or approved ASI determines that the evaluator is:

1)    Aware of updates on relevant changes to criteria and other areas of emphasis;
2)    Applying current IFPV policy; and
Indicates new/changed information.
3)    Proficient in conducting the specific IFPV activity (i.e., simulator evaluation, ground obstacle assessment, airborne obstacle assessment, and/or flight validation).

NOTE:  See Volume 11, Chapter 12, Section 2 for a description of the entire authorization process.

11-322    IFPV ACTIVITY FORMS.

Indicates new/changed information.

A.    Form Use. The evaluator will use FAA Forms 8260-30.1, Simulator Validation Checklist; 8260‑30.2, Obstacle Assessment Checklist; and 8260-30.3, Flight Validation Checklist, in Figures 11-30, 11-31, and 11-32. Table 11-1 contains a description of the information to include in each block of the three forms.

Indicates new/changed information.

B.    Furnishing Forms to AFS-460. The organization conducting the IFPV activity will complete and retain an FAA Form 8260-30 series for each activity in which AFS-460 was notified. The service provider must provide the original signed and completed “satisfactory” forms for simulator evaluation, obstacle assessment, and flight validation to AFS-460, along with the procedure development package. The service provider must provide AFS-460 with an electronic copy of the signed FAA Form 8260-30.2 for periodic assessments.

Table 11-1.  Instrument Flight Procedure Validation Forms Checklist Legend (Revision 2)

BLOCK 1. Date

Enter the date of the Instrument Flight Procedure Validation (IFPV) Activity.

BLOCK 2. Organization

Enter the organization or name of the operator (e.g., XXX Airlines, Joe Smith, etc.).

BLOCK 3. Airport

Enter the airport/heliport FAA or ICAO ID.

BLOCK 4. Procedure

Enter the name of the procedure (e.g., RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 17L).

BLOCK 5. Amend #

Enter the amendment number of the procedure (e.g., ORIG or AMEND 1).

BLOCK 6. Aircraft Type

Enter the make, model, and series (M/M/S) of aircraft used to conduct the activity. For ground-based obstacle assessments, enter “Ground.”

BLOCK 7. FMS/Software

Enter the flight management system (FMS) (or Global Positioning System (GPS)) type and software version used during the activity.

BLOCK 8. PIC Name/Phone

Enter the name and telephone number of the pilot in command (PIC) of the validation flight.

BLOCK 9. Evaluator Name/Phone

Enter the name and telephone number of the evaluator.

BLOCK 10. FMC NAV Data and Source Comparison Satisfactory

Compare the source data contained on the FAA 8260-series forms, Terminal Area Route Generation Evaluation and Traffic Simulation (TARGETS) distribution package, or any other official distribution package to the data loaded in the flight management computer (FMC). It is acceptable to complete this comparison prior to conducting the flight validation by comparing the electronic Navigation Database (NDB) report file against the FAA or official source data. Ensure that the effective dates and NDB identifiers of the report file match the actual NDB used to conduct the validation flight and enter NDB identifiers used in this block. In this step, it is important to validate waypoint latitude/longitude, segment lengths, segment courses, altitudes, speeds, and Flight Path Angles (FPA). For legs that contain radius to a fix (RF) segments, ensure that the arc distances displayed match the source data.

BLOCK 11. IAP Assessed to DA/MDA

Fly procedures with vertical guidance to the Decision Altitude (DA). For procedures without vertical guidance, evaluate the procedure to the minimum descent altitude (MDA).

BLOCK 12. DP Assessed at Minimum Climb Gradients

Fly the departure at standard climb gradient or minimum published climb gradient noted on the chart. Ensure obstacle clearance.

BLOCK 13. Simulation Data File Saved

Record and save any available simulation data (i.e., latitude/longitude, altitude, and speed records) for post simulator analysis.

BLOCK 14. Procedure Assessed at Design Limits

Assess the procedure at the design limits (e.g., minimum and maximum temperatures, winds, airspeed, climb/descent gradients, etc.) to check for flyability issues or terrain alerts.

BLOCK 15. Flyability Satisfactory

Assess the overall flyability of the procedure. Ensure that the aircraft is delivered to the desired aiming point. Consider aircraft performance limitations with respect to required climb and descent rates. Consider aircraft equipment limitations with respect to maintaining the procedure centerline. Ensure that waypoint spacing is sufficient to allow the aircraft to stabilize on each leg without bypassing waypoints/legs. Leg length must be sufficient to allow for aircraft deceleration or altitude change if required. Consider human factors issues such as crew coordination, required deviations to standard operating procedures (SOP), etc.

BLOCK 16. Chart Detail Satisfactory

Ensure that the chart has sufficient detail without excessive clutter. Determine whether the chart assists the pilot in safely navigating and identifying significant terrain and/or obstacles with consideration of human factors.

BLOCK 17. RNP < 1.0 in Missed Approach Noted

If the missed approach requires less than Required Navigation Performance (RNP) 1.0, ensure that there is a remark in the notes section (e.g., “Missed approach requires RNP less than 1.0”). If RNP is not < 1.0 in the Missed Approach Segment, enter “NA.”

BLOCK 18. RF Legs Noted

If the procedure requires RF legs at any point, ensure that there is a remark in the notes section (e.g., “RF required”) or, for specific transitions, next to IAF in plain view. If there are no RF legs in the procedure, enter “NA.”

BLOCK 19. Non-Standard Speed/Climb Noted

If the procedure requires a specified speed, or nonstandard climb gradient, ensure that it is properly noted (e.g., “Requires Missed Approach Climb Gradient of xxx ft/ nm to xxxx” in the notes section). If there is not a specified speed or climb gradient required, enter “NA.”

BLOCK 20. Temperature Limits Noted

Verify identification of low and high temperature limits on the chart in the notes section (e.g., “For uncompensated barometric vertical navigation (baro-VNAV) systems, Procedure NA below –5˚C (23˚F) or above 40˚C (104˚F)”). If the temperature limit is not required, enter “NA.”

BLOCK 21. Aircraft Size Noted

If the procedure requires aircraft size notes, ensure that there is a remark in the notes section (e.g., “Procedure NA for aircraft with wingspan greater than 136 ft”). If there are no aircraft size requirements in the procedure, enter “NA.”

BLOCK 22. Chart Matches Flight Track

Ensure that the chart accurately portrays the procedure.

BLOCK 24. Courses

Identify each transition by writing the starting fix next to “TRANS” in the column at far left for IAPs and the ending fix for Departures (each transition includes all segments Feeder, IAF and IF for approaches, and all fixes after the common route for DPs ). Identify each STAR en route transition by writing the starting fix next to “ENROUTE TRANS.” Identify each STAR or DP runway transition by writing the runway number next to “RWY TRANS.” Verify that magnetic course to next waypoint indicated on the FMS or GPS accurately reflects the procedure design for the entire transition. Variances greater than ±1 degree must be resolved. Select “P” for “Pass,” “F” for “Fail,” or “NA” for “Not Applicable.”

BLOCK 25. Distances

Verify that distances indicated by the aircraft navigation system accurately reflect the procedure design for the entire transition variances greater than +/- 0.1 nautical miles (NM) must be resolved. Do not confuse the distance to the next fix with the RF leg radius displayed by some systems. Select “P” for “Pass,” “F” for “Fail,” or “NA” for “Not Applicable.”

BLOCK 26. FPA

Verify that the FPA indicated on the FMS or GPS accurately reflects the procedure design. Select “P” for “Pass,” “F” for “Fail,” or “NA” for “Not Applicable.”

BLOCK 27. TAWS

Note any indications of the terrain alerts and warning system. Record details of the alert to include latitude/longitude, outside air temperature, aircraft configuration, speed, and altitude in the comments section. Select “P” for “Pass,” “F” for “Fail,” or “NA” for “Not Applicable.” If TAWS system is not installed, mark “NA.”

BLOCK 28. Constraints Met

Evaluate the procedure at the specified altitude and speeds. Verify all speed and altitude restrictions are achievable. If an altitude window is specified on a STAR, start at the lowest altitude and fly procedure using altitude within the constraints that provide the shallowest path. Evaluate departures at the minimum climb gradient or higher, if charted.

BLOCK 29. TW COMP

Record the tailwind component or actual wind for the transition or segment flown. For the simulator evaluation, fly the procedure with the applicable wind criteria used to develop the procedure.

BLOCK 30. RF Bank Angle

Enter the maximum bank angle seen on an RF leg in the specified transition or segment. If the bank angle exceeds the procedure design limits, note it in Block 51 and resolve it with the procedure designer.

BLOCK 31. Biennial

If a TERPs biennial review was required, indicate if the review was SAT or UNSAT. If a review is not required, mark “NA.” If the review was Unsatisfactory (UNSAT), indicate corrective action in Block 51 (e.g., NOTAM issued, Amendment will be processed etc.).

BLOCK 32. Date Biennial Complete

Indicate the date of completion if a biennial review was performed. If Block 31 was “NA,” leave blank.

BLOCK 33. Equipment Accuracy Verified

Prior to the IFPV activity, ensure that the aircraft and/or ground equipment required to conduct the activity is functioning properly (e.g., Autonomous Global Positioning System Recording System (AGRS), TARGETS software, etc.).

BLOCK 34. Documented Controlling Obstacle Verified

The evaluator must confirm location and height of each documented controlling obstacle by in-flight or ground observation. If the obstacle is listed as terrain/trees or Adverse Assumption Obstacle (AAO), it is not necessary to verify which tree is controlling, only that no higher man‑made obstacles are present in the protected airspace. If marked “No,” provide additional information in the appropriate “Obstruction Discrepancies” block. All step-down fixes/altitudes may require additional controlling obstacles for that segment. Ensure that all controlling obstacles are verified.

BLOCK 35. Documented Controlling Obstacle Most Adverse

Ensure that the documented controlling obstacle is the most adverse obstacle in each transition or segment. If marked “No,” provide additional information in the appropriate “Obstruction Discrepancies” block.

BLOCK 36. Verified Clear

Ensure the visual segment for approach or ICA/proceed visually area for DP is clear. If obstacles exist that were not accounted for, include in Blocks 38, 39, 40 as appropriate.

BLOCK 37. Appropriate Mitigations in Place

If Block 36 is “No,” verify the appropriate mitigations are in place (i.e., 20:1 penetrations requires visibility 1 SM and possible night restrictions, obstacles charted/lighted for copter etc.).

BLOCK 38. Obstacle in Database Does Not Exist

If the evaluator does not find the obstacle, he or she will enter the obstacle database information including latitude/longitude, height, obstacle ID (include the database source; e.g., National Airspace System Resources (NASR), Digital Vertical Obstruction File (DVOF), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), etc.), and any supporting documentation (survey, AGRS data, GPS-tagged photo, Google Earth file, etc.). For multiple obstacles, attach additional FAA 8260-30.2 forms.

BLOCK 39. Obstacle Not In Database

For a discovered obstacle not in the obstacle database, enter the obstacle database information including latitude/longitude, height, obstacle ID (include the database source; e.g., NASR, DVOF, FCC, etc.), and any supporting documentation (survey, AGRS data, GPS-tagged photo, Google Earth file, etc.). For multiple obstacles, attach additional FAA 8260-30.2 forms.

BLOCK 40. Obstacle Data Incorrect

When the obstacle database contains incorrect obstacle data, enter the obstacle database information, including latitude/longitude, height, obstacle ID (include the database source; e.g., NASR, DVOF, FCC, etc.), and any supporting documentation (survey, AGRS data, GPS‑tagged photo, Google Earth file, etc.). For multiple obstacles, attach additional FAA 8260-30.2 forms.

BLOCK 41. Obstacle Data Discrepancies Sent to NFDC

Send obstacle data discrepancies to National Flight Data Center Office of the Asst. Secretary of Defense (NFDC).

BLOCK 42. Date Sent

Indicate the date the obstacle data discrepancies were sent to NFDC.

BLOCK 43. Simulator and Obstacle Notes Reviewed

Review the notes from previous IFPV activities (obstacle assessment and simulator evaluations). Pay special attention to any information in Block 51 of the FAA Forms 8260-30.1 and 8260-30.2 and consider/verify them during the flight validation.

BLOCK 44. Air/Ground Communications Satisfactory

Communications with air traffic control (ATC) must be satisfactory at the initial approach fix (IAF) minimum altitude and at the missed approach altitude and holding fix.

BLOCK 45. Radar Coverage Adequate

Ensure that radar coverage is available for all portions of the procedure, where required.

BLOCK 46. Adequate Navigation Performance Achieved

Ensure that the navigation equipment performed to the level required in the procedure design (note loss of receiver autonomous integrity monitoring (RAIM), RNP levels exceeded, etc.). Notify AFS-460 if unanticipated navigation performance issues occur. Radio-frequency interference (RFI) may be the cause and could require additional investigation.

BLOCK 47. Runway Markings/Features Verified

Evaluate the suitability of the airport/heliport to support the procedure. Pay special attention to confusing airport/heliport markings, nonstandard or confusing lighting aids, or lack of communications. Ensure that the Visual Guide Slope Indicator (VGSI) angles appear as intended or charted when installed.

BLOCK 48. FAS Data Block Satisfactory

The Final Approach Segment (FAS) data block only pertains to wide area augmentation system (WAAS), Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP). Verify that the ellipsoid height/threshold crossing height (TCH), course alignment, FPA, and Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) are within the tolerances defined in Order 8200.1. Enter the values in the evaluator notes block (Block 51). For non-WAAS IFP, enter “NA” in the block.

BLOCK 49. Visual Segment

Evaluate for operational suitability, reasonable clearance from all obstacles, visual references, and safety.

BLOCK 50. Night Evaluation

Evaluate the lighting system to ensure the light pattern is as charted, operates in the manner proposed, visible from the missed approach point, and that the local lighting patterns of the surrounding area does not distract, confuse or incorrectly identify the runway environment or heliport. Mark “NA” if night evaluation is not required.

BLOCK 51. Evaluator Notes

Use this section to describe any elements deemed unsatisfactory. List procedure recommendations as well as any concerns such as crew workload, unassessed obstacles, human factors, lateral or vertical deviations, flyability, database coding, or crew operational procedures. Make special note if the flight is done during night hours. For WAAS IFP, list FAS data values.

BLOCK 52. Procedure SAT/UNSAT

Check “SAT” if the procedure meets all requirements. Check “UNSAT” if the procedure does not meet all requirements.

BLOCK 53. Evaluator Signature

Signature of the evaluator.

Figure 11-30.  FAA Form 8260-30.1, Simulator Validation Checklist

Figure 11-30. FAA Form 8260-30.1, Simulator Validation Checklist

Figure 11-30.  FAA Form 8260-30.1, Simulator Validation Checklist (Continued)

Figure 11-30. FAA Form 8260-30.1, Simulator Validation Checklist


Figure 11-30.     FAA Form 8260-30.1, Simulator Validation Checklist (Continued)

Figure 11-30. FAA Form 8260-30.1, Simulator Validation Checklist

Figure 11-31.  FAA Form 8260-30.2, Obstacle Assessment Checklist

Figure 11-31. FAA Form 8260-30.2, Obstacle Assessment Checklist


Figure 11-31.  FAA Form 8260-30.2, Obstacle Assessment Checklist (Continued)

Figure 11-31. FAA Form 8260-30.2, Obstacle Assessment Checklist


Figure 11-31.  FAA Form 8260-30.2, Obstacle Assessment Checklist (Continued)

Figure 11-31. FAA Form 8260-30.2, Obstacle Assessment Checklist

Figure 11-32.  FAA Form 8260-30.3, Flight Validation Checklist

Figure 11-32. FAA Form 8260-30.3, Flight Validation Checklist


Figure 11-32.  FAA Form 8260-30.3, Flight Validation Checklist (Continued)

Figure 11-32. FAA Form 8260-30.3, Flight Validation Checklist


Figure 11-32.  FAA Form 8260-30.3, Flight Validation Checklist (Continued)

Figure 11-32. FAA Form 8260-30.3, Flight Validation Checklist


11-323    EXAMPLE BRIEFING FOR PILOTS WITHOUT AN LOA. If a crewmember does not hold an LOA during IFPV activities, the designated evaluator for that event must brief the pilot. For example, the LOA holder does not have a type rating in the aircraft being flown during a simulator evaluation.

A.    Introduction.

1)    The PIC is responsible for all aspects of the flight.
2)    IFPV personnel will not ask or require them to do anything outside the regulations or their operations specifications (OpSpecs).
3)    The PIC must comply with operator policies and procedures.

B.    Mission.

1)    Cover all scheduled validation locations and intentions for IFP locations.
2)    Discuss procedure legs, altitudes, and airspeeds that the pilot will fly (i.e., initial, intermediate, final, missed approach, and holding).
3)    Discuss how the pilot will fly OEAs, if applicable, who will define the track to be flown, etc.
4)    Discuss how the pilot will conduct an airborne obstacle assessment, if applicable.
5)    Discuss a proposed route for efficiency, ATC, weather, fuel locations, and other operational needs.
6)    Discuss how flight validation will occur.

C.    Operating Rules.

1)    Title 14 CFR part 91.
2)    Flight Plan Type. VFR and/or IFR operations are authorized during IFPV activities. However, the weather at the location of the IFPV activity must meet the requirements of this chapter. VMC are mandatory during obstacle evaluation, night evaluation, VFR area evaluation, visual segment evaluation, and departure procedure evaluations.
3)    Weather. Expected conditions for departure, en route, destination, alternate, etc.
4)    Notices to Airmen (NOTAM). Departure, en route, destination, alternate.
5)    Temporary Flight Restrictions.
6)    Emergencies. During an emergency, the flight validation will terminate immediately.

D.    Company/Operator Requirements.

1)    The PIC will follow all company/operator requirements.
2)    There will be no pressure to operate outside the company/operator’s rules.
3)    The PIC follows the company/operator’s flight-following rules.

E.    IFPV Requirements.

1)    Will comply with FAA IFPV requirements.
2)    Brief the crew to ensure understanding and comfort with the mission requirements.

F.    Post Mission. Obtain/verify contact information for the chief pilot, Director of Operations (DO), principal operations inspector (POI), and All Weather Operations (AWO) individual (if possible).

11-324    EXAMPLE LOAs.

A.    Consideration for an LOA. AFS-400 issues an LOA to indicate an organization’s authorization to conduct IFPV activities. For an organization to receive consideration for an LOA, the organization must develop an AFS-460-accepted operations manual describing the processes and policies for all aspects of the IFPV activities it is requesting. The operations manual must contain, at a minimum, the information required in paragraphs 11-317 and 11-318.

B.    Individual Authorization. AFS-400 also issues an LOA to individuals within an organization who will be performing the IFPV activities. The LOA will indicate which activity the individual has authorization to perform. Volume 11, Chapter 12, Section 2 includes the requirements to receive an LOA.

C.    Using an LOA. Prior to exercising the privileges of the LOA, an individual must notify AFS-460. Sufficient notice must be given to allow AFS-460 the option to conduct oversight of any IFPV activity. The individual’s LOA must be immediately available while performing validation activities.

Figure 11-33.  Sample Instrument Flight Procedure Validation Letters



U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Logo

 

 

 

800 Independence Ave., SW.

Washington, DC 20591

October 28, 2009

Hank Townsend

Vice President Flight Operations

Open Skies Airline, Inc.

P.O. Box 12345

Anytown, WA 98765

Subject: Authorization to Conduct Instrument Flight Procedure Validation (IFPV) Activities

Dear Mr. Townsend,

Open Skies Airline, Inc., holding Air Carrier Operating Certificate No. 1234543, is hereby authorized to conduct IFPV activities in accordance with current guidance for IFPV of Satellite-Based Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) IFP in the following type aircraft: Boeing 737-800.

Open Skies Airline must advise the Flight Procedure Implementation and Oversight Branch, AFS-460, of their intention to validate an IFP. Sufficient notice must be given to allow AFS-460 the option to conduct oversight of your validation activities.

This authorization requires concurrence of the Principal Operations Inspector (POI), Open Skies Airline Certificate Management Office (CMO).

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to call AFS-460 at 405-954-9359.

Sincerely,

Manager, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division

Certificate Management Office

Approval:_____________________________________________________

Supervisory Principal Operations Inspector

Figure 11-33.     Sample Instrument Flight Procedure Validation Letters (Continued)

Figure 11-33. Sample Instrument Flight Procedure Validation Letters (Continued)


RESERVED. Paragraphs 11-325 through 11-339.