Transitioning to

Point to Point Navigation

Charting Recommendations and Proposal for

ACF Subcommittee

Multiple Efforts Underway that Impact Charting

• PBN NAS Navigation Strategy• RTCA PBN Route Structure CONOPs• Metroplex• NAVAID rationalization (VOR MON and NDBs)• ADS-B equipage

Considerations for ACF Recommendations

• Need to harmonize charting needs • Ensure a holistic approach is being taken• Consider impacts of multiple efforts• Include charting experts as well as operators

ProposalForm ACF Subcommittee to look at challenges facing point-to-point navigation and present comprehensive recommendations

Challenges Proposed to be Addressed

• Providing Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA) to pilots• Waypoint naming and organization • Waypoint definition including altitude applicable for use• Charting Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA)• Changeover altitude for Low/High Altitude Enroute charts FL 23,0

Providing Minimum IFR

Altitude (MIA) to Pilots

Problem Overview – IFR Enroute Low Altitude Charts

Transitioning to a PBN NAS requires the removal of the bulk of the ground-based route structure. Removing routes limits a pilots ability to know how low they can go for normal operations.

Need to preserve route benefits• MEA benefits • Reduction in Required Obstacle Clearance (ROC) allows pilots to not have to fly 2000’ in

mountainous• Example, 1500’ in Eastern US, 1700’ in Western US (8260.3C, 15-2-1)

Need to provide minimum altitude to pilot for off route navigation• OROCA not for navigation• MEA no longer will be provided in many areasFlight planning gaps• Pilot compliance with FAR 91.177• ATC and pilot need to be on same page

Recommended Solution to Gaps – Chart MIA

MIA (JO 7210.37)• Is what ATC will clear aircraft for• Is what pilots should expect• Meets FAR 91.177 requirements • Includes ROC reductions (precipitous terrain considered)• Factors in controlled airspace (300’ buffer – same as routes, see

FAAO 8260.19, 3-3-2)• Does not factor in radar surveillance • Does not factor in communication coverage• Incorporates low MEAs from existing routes (preserve benefits)• Provided for all areas of the NAS (all ARTCCs)• Very similar to OROCA • Kept up to date – information can be tracked• Complete NAS coverageCan be used for off route navigation

Solution – What this would look like

Retain existing OROCA box size (1 degree x 1 degree) for MIA • Simplicity• Human factorsUtilize highest MIA for each OROCA MIA grid square• Should be similar to existing OROCA

Would not preclude ATC from clearing aircraft to a lower altitude (MIA, MVA, MEA, MOCA)

ZOA Case Study 1 (Santa Rosa, Sacramento)

ZOA Case Study 2 (Maxwell, Beale)

ZOA Case Study 3 (SFO)

• Environmental consideration –Redwoods

• Offshore MIAs high due to controlled airspace being 5500

Alaska Grid MIA Discussion

Alaska – Grid size

CONUS - One degree by one degree quadrant

Alaska - Two degree by two degree quadrant• Grid squares too large• Lack granularity • Lack usefulness

ZAN Case Study – OROCA box with highest MIA shown

ZAN Case Study – CONUS grid size shown

(1 degree x 1 degree)

Recommendations

• Replace OROCA with highest MIA• Utilize existing grid size• New product called “Grid MIA”

Alaska• Change grid size to be similar to CONUS (1 degree x 2 degrees)

Area charts• Retain existing grid size

Waypoints for Low Altitude

Environment

Today

Future

Draft Recommendations

• For those airways to be removed as part of the MON and other efforts, retain all fixes,

intersections, and NAVAIDs along that route currently in place by amending their

definition to that of an RNAV waypoint.

• Retain the existing five letter pronounceable name for fixes. The name of the

decommissioned NAVAID should be used for its five letter pronounceable name as part

of becoming solely an RNAV waypoint. This effort is already being implemented by the

MON PMO as part of their draw down effort.

• There needs to be a simple process for users and local facilities to request new

waypoints. There needs to also be a process for local facilities to be able to request the

removal of underutilized or redundant waypoints.

Low/High Altitude Enroute

Charts: Changeover at FL 23,0

Charting ATCAAs

Proposed RD to ACF

• Center Low Sector ceilings are typically FL 23,0

• Center High Sector floors are typically FL 23,0

• Regardless of Current Chart Information, most active MOA’s

ceilings are FL 23,0 due to associated ATCAA

• Large number of Turbo-Charged General aviation aircraft

are utilizing the airspace above FL 18,0

Proposal to ACF

Form ACF Subcommittee to look at challenges facing point-to-

point navigation and present comprehensive recommendations

Goal – Provide recommendations at next ACF

Composition – Industry and FAA

Thank you!

AOPAAir Traffic Services

202-509-9515Rune.duke@aopa.org