Appendix A A-6 A.3.6.2 Altitudes. Altitudes should provide adequate obstacle and terrain clearance if adhering to PANS-OPS/MIPS/TERPS criteria. Altitudes will be published as mean sea level (MSL), requiring use of a barometric pressure for local altimeter setting (QNH), or heights above the altimeter station, requiring the use of an atmospheric pressure at aerodrome elevation (or at runway threshold) (QFE) altimeter setting. Alert pilots of possible confusion and applicable action to be taken.
A.3.6.3 Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) Arc Radius/Arc Length. The aircraft and its avionics should be able to track the arc without difficulty.
A.3.6.4 Segment Length. The segment length should be suitable for the aircraft using the instrument procedure.
A.3.6.5 Descent Gradient. The segment descent gradient should be suitable for the aircraft using the procedure.
A.3.6.6 Lead Radial. Lead radials should be established where required. If not, a lead radial may need to be calculated for operator use.
A.3.6.7 Course Alignment. When there are course changes in this segment, the course alignment should be suitable for the aircraft using the procedure.
A.3.7 Intermediate Segment. Operators should consider each of the following items:
A.3.7.1 Fix Identification. The aircraft that will be using this procedure should have the navigation equipment necessary to identify the fix(es).
A.3.7.2 Altitudes. Altitudes should provide adequate obstacle and terrain clearance if adhering to PANS-OPS/MIPS/TERPS criteria. Altitudes will be published as MSL, requiring use of QNH, or heights above the altimeter station, requiring the use of a QFE altimeter setting. Alert pilots of possible confusion and applicable action to be taken.
A.3.7.3 Segment Length. The segment should be sufficient in length (and alignment) to allow time to properly configure the type of aircraft that will be using the procedure. Many countries do not provide a straight intermediate segment and have a teardrop turn completion at the final approach fix (FAF). Consider establishing pilot guidance to configure the aircraft for landing early when encountering short, turning intermediate segments.
A.3.7.4 Descent Gradient. The segment descent gradient should be suitable for the aircraft using the procedure.
A.3.7.5 Course Alignment. The instrument procedure course alignment should be suitable for the type of aircraft that will be using the procedure.
Appendix A A-7 A.3.8 Final Segment. Operators should consider each of the following items:
A.3.8.1 Visibility Values. If no visibility values (aerodrome operating minimums) are provided on the foreign State AIP chart, then the responsibility to ensure compliance with approved visibility criteria remains with the certificate holder (CH) per 14 CFR § 91.703. Apply commensurate criteria to the State chart when calculating and identifying a visibility or RVR restriction for the procedure. In all cases, the operators must not fly lower minimums than those authorized in OpSpecs per 14 CFR § 119.49.
Note: This does not preclude the use of commercial aeronautical data and chart providers from calculating and publishing visibility values for the operator.
A.3.8.2 Lighting Systems. The lighting system should be compliant with the identified procedure criteria used by the State for the development of the airport unless exceptions are stated in the AIP or equivalent source documents. For more information on ICAO lighting requirements, refer to ICAO Annex 14, Volume I, Aerodrome Design and Operations.
A.3.8.3 Fix Identification. The aircraft that will be using this procedure should have the navigation equipment necessary to identify the fix(es).
A.3.8.4 Altitudes. Altitudes should provide adequate obstacle and terrain clearance if adhering to PANS-OPS/MIPS/TERPS criteria. The foreign State will publish altitudes as MSL, requiring use of a QNH altimeter setting, or heights above the altimeter station, requiring the use of a QFE altimeter setting. Operators should alert pilots of possible confusion and applicable action to be taken.
A.3.8.5 Segment Length. The instrument procedure segment length should be adequate for the type of aircraft using the procedure and pilots should be able to discontinue an approach, if necessary, from any point to touchdown.
A.3.8.6 Descent Gradient. Descent gradients should be suitable for the aircraft using the procedure. Calculate by dividing the height loss from the FAF/step-down fix to the runway threshold crossing height (TCH) by the nautical mile (NM) length of this segment.
Note: Some countries publish a descent gradient on final by expressing it as a percentage on the profile view (e.g., 6.8 percent).
Convert the percentage into a descent gradient expressed in feet per nautical mile (ft/NM) by multiplying the percentage by 6076.11548
(e.g., .068 x 6076.11548 = 413.1758526 ft/NM).
A.3.8.7 Descent Angle/TCH. The descent angle and TCH should be adequate for the type of aircraft using the procedure.
Appendix A A-8 A.3.9 Missed Approach Segment (MAS). The MAS should be adequate for the aircraft using this procedure. For example, a procedure may have an early turn (below 400 ft above ground level (AGL)). Operators should consider whether to restrict the procedure to aircraft that can accomplish this operation safely or to deny use of the procedure altogether.
A.3.10 Circling. The applicable aircraft category should be published and available for the type of aircraft that will be using the circling procedure. The AIP will state what criteria were used to develop the circling procedures. Operators should inform pilots of the maximum speeds allowed when conducting the maneuver.
Note: Some commercial aeronautical data and chart providers list the speed instead of the aircraft category for pilot awareness.
A.3.11 Plan View/Profile View. Data shown in the plan view should correspond to data published in the profile view. Operators should inform pilots of anything out of the ordinary in these views.
A.4 Departure Procedure Review Recommendations. The operator can use the following information when conducting risk-based reviews of departure procedures (DP) and Standard Instrument Departures (SID):
Note: Some countries do not establish a departure procedure for obstacle avoidance like the United States. They expect the pilot to avoid obstacles when not using a SID. If the location is situated in an “obstacle rich” environment, the operator may determine to require the use of published SIDs as the only method of departing.
A.4.1 Departure End of Runway (DER) Crossing Restrictions. ICAO Doc 8168, Volume II, Construction of Visual and Instrument Flight Procedures, includes departure procedures with a DER crossing restriction built in. This is commonly referred to as a “screen height.” The standard ICAO DER crossing restriction is five meters (16 ft) and assumes all aircraft will cross DER at or above this height. This standard should be assumed if the foreign State’s AIP states that ICAO PANS-OPS was used without any screen height exceptions for the development of the procedure. Operators should be familiar with exceptions to DER crossing restrictions.
A.4.2 Low, Close-in Obstacles. Standard and non-standard climb gradients may not account for low, close-in obstacles when foreign States design them. Some countries might not depict this information on a procedure chart. This information might only be available elsewhere in their AIP in a profile map.
A.4.3 Early Turns. A procedure may have an early turn (below 400 ft AGL). It may be necessary to restrict the procedure to aircraft that can accomplish this operation safely or deny use of the procedure altogether.
A.4.4 Climb Gradients. Countries may publish climb gradients as a percentage. Operators may need to convert this to ft/NM. Climb gradients exceeding the standard 3.3 percent
Appendix A A-9 (200 ft/NM) may exceed aircraft performance limits and may require an assessment to determine if the aircraft using the procedure can meet the published climb gradient.
A.4.5 Crossing Altitudes. Countries will publish crossing altitudes per ICAO Annex 4, Aeronautical Charts. Aircraft using the procedure should have the performance to meet all published restrictions. Operators should treat all crossing altitudes as a requirement for obstacle avoidance unless specifically addressed as an air traffic control (ATC) crossing restriction. Not all countries clearly define the difference.
A.4.6 Positive Course Guidance. Procedures should depict positive course guidance. If there are excessive portions of the procedure that do not contain positive course guidance, the operator may determine to impose additional operational restrictions.
A.4.7 Complexity. Procedures should be designed to minimize complexity. If overly complex, operators should provide clarifying guidance to ensure flight safety.
Appendix B B-1 APPENDIX B. OPERATOR CONSIDERATIONS WHEN REVIEWING A
FOREIGN STATE CAA B.1 Background. This appendix contains items of interest that should be considered when reviewing the foreign State’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) aviation program.
Operators may establish a risk-based management process that identifies, maintains, and periodically revalidates a list of foreign State CAA programs that consistently develop and maintain instrument procedures equivalent to the same degree as U.S. standards. This risk-based assessment should focus on CAA differences from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). These ICAO differences can be found in Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) ENR 1.5 and GEN 1.7 or a commercial equivalent. An operator should review these differences to see if additional individual procedure reviews are warranted or if any of these differences require additional mitigation in the form of pilot awareness or denying use of a specific procedure. Operators should routinely review these foreign-State-declared ICAO differences.
Large operators may use this information to create specific training, briefing manuals, or specific pilot alerts. Smaller on-demand operators may train their pilots on how to access this information from existing commercial aeronautical data and chart suppliers and then have a system to notify the company of operational concerns discovered upon reviewing this information during trip planning.
B.2 CAA Program Assessment. The operator’s risk-based management process should address items identified in Appendix A, Foreign Terminal Instrument Procedures (FTIP) Risk Considerations, as well as flight inspection, flight validation, and instrument procedure development, publication, and maintenance practices. A foreign State CAA program may be found acceptable after assessing an appropriate sample size of FTIPs.
The operator should review the procedures for consistency with design criteria and should determine whether any risk is acceptable. The CAA is also expected to meet other established ICAO standards explained in this appendix. The FAA recommends that the operators revalidate a foreign State’s CAA program and FTIPs at a minimum 3 year interval, or sooner if needed. The operator should consider the following during the initial assessment or revalidation of a foreign State:
B.2.1 Procedure Development Consistency. No unacceptable risk should be presented after assessing an appropriate number of FTIPs utilizing Appendix A. The appropriate number of instrument procedures should be based on the procedure inventory size of the foreign State where operators wish to conduct operations.
B.2.2 International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) Program. The IASA program was formally established in the Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 164, August 24, 1992, with the purpose of ensuring that all foreign air carriers operating to or from the U.S., or codesharing with a U.S. carrier, are properly certificated and subject to safety oversight provided by a competent CAA in accordance with ICAO standards. An operator may check to see if the foreign State was reviewed by the FAA’s IASA Program. The IASA Program focuses on a country’s ability, not the ability of individual air carriers, to adhere to international aviation safety standards and recommended practices contained in
Appendix B B-2 International Convention on Civil Aviation “Chicago Convention” ICAO Doc 7300, Annex I, Personnel Licensing; Annex 6, Operation of Aircraft; and Annex 8, Airworthiness of Aircraft. While the IASA in-country assessment does not focus specifically on instrument procedure design criteria, it is a good reflection of the foreign State’s CAA safety oversight. The “IASA Program and Process” and “Results” are published at https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/iasa. A foreign State with no published IASA result may mean the foreign State’s air carriers no longer provide air service to the U.S., none of the foreign State’s air carriers participate in code-share arrangements with U.S. air carriers, or the foreign State’s CAA has ceased interacting with the FAA for an extended period.
B.2.3 Foreign State Operator Requirements. The operator should identify that foreign State operator requirements can be met and are acceptable for both instrument procedures and flight operations. Normally a foreign State’s AIP will list instrument procedure requirements and criteria exceptions in the ENR 1.5 section, and all other general operation exceptions from ICAO Annexes in the GEN 1.7 section per ICAO Annex 15, Aeronautical Information Services. Aerodrome (AD)-specific operating requirements can be found in the AD section of the foreign State’s AIP.
Note: Commercial aeronautical data and chart providers may collect AIP data from foreign States and present it in proprietary formats in lieu of referring to the foreign State’s AIP. In some cases, the consolidated information is reproduced onto the affected aeronautical chart or put into a proprietary manual. This appendix references the foreign State’s AIP so operators are familiar with the source data/charts, but operators may use the equivalent information provided by an appropriate commercial aeronautical data and chart provider for their review process.
B.2.4 Flight Inspection and Flight Validation. Operators should consider the flight inspection and validation of an FTIP and the periodicity at which they occur. If the foreign State indicates that they follow ICAO Doc 8168, Aircraft Operations, Volume II, Construction of Visual and Instrument Flight Procedures, without exception, then all provisions should be met from Part I, Section 2, Chapter 4, Quality Assurance.
Note: ICAO views flight inspection and flight validation differently than the United States. The United States will accomplish flight validation during the flight inspection process covering both the quality check of the instrument procedure and Navigational Aid (NAVAID). With ICAO, flight validation quality checks the instrument flight procedures and flight inspection is done separately to ensure the appropriate radio navigation aids adequately support the procedure.
B.2.5 Instrument Procedure Publication and Maintenance. Consideration should be given to the FTIP publication and maintenance practices of the foreign State.
B.2.5.1 Timely Aeronautical Information. Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) information and updates to AIP information should be accessible and usable in a timely manner.
Appendix B B-3 B.2.5.2 Familiarity with Charts. The operator should be familiar with the foreign State’s chart symbology and requirements.
B.2.5.3 Quality Assurance (QA). The foreign State should indicate the procedures are developed in accordance with ICAO Doc 8168 and/or Doc 9905, Required Navigation Performance Authorization Required (RNP AR) Procedure Design Manual. These documents point to each other and outline requirements for a robust QA program.
Note: Commercial aeronautical data and chart providers may consolidate and streamline foreign State NOTAM information and AIP updates in accordance with their own internal standard practices. They may also provide these updates with their own standard charting symbology commensurate with the foreign State charts.
B.2.6 Foreign State CAA Contacts. The operator should contact the foreign State CAA if any questions from the FTIP assessment need clarification. The foreign State contact information can be found in the GEN section of the foreign State’s AIP, normally GEN 0.1 and 1.1.
Advisory Circular Feedback Form If you find an error in this AC, have recommendations for improving it, or have suggestions for new items/subjects to be added, you may let us know by contacting the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division at 9-AWA-AFS400-Coord@faa.gov or the Flight Standards Directives Management Officer at 9-AWA-AFB-120-Directives@faa.gov.
Subject: AC 120-105B, Foreign Terminal Instrument Procedures (FTIP) Acceptance/Review Date: _____________________ Please check all appropriate line items:
An error (procedural or typographical) has been noted in paragraph ____________ on page _______.
Recommend paragraph _____________ on page __________ be changed as follows:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ In a future change to this AC, please cover the following subject:
(Briefly describe what you want added.)
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Other comments:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ I would like to discuss the above. Please contact me.
Submitted by: Date: ______________________