Chapter 2 CHAPTER 2. SERVICE PROVIDER REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Operational Guidance.
The organization must have AFS-460 accepted guidance (e.g., operations manual) describing the processes and policies the non-FAA service provider must follow when conducting IFPV activities. The guidance must, as a minimum, contain the following information:
2.1.1 General information containing:
2.1.1.1 Contact person/persons in charge and physical address of all saved records.
2.1.1.2 List of individuals authorized to conduct IFPV and their relevant endorsements (simulator evaluation, ground obstacle assessment, airborne obstacle assessment, and flight validation).
2.1.1.3 Process for periodic internal audits.
2.1.1.4 Process for communicating and coordinating with appropriate FAA offices to include the transfer of data, forms, and documents.
2.1.1.5 Process for acquiring and maintaining regulatory guidance material associated with each authorized function, to include processes for maintaining the currency of all reference material.
2.1.1.6 Process to ensure all personnel authorized to perform IFPV activities are current and trained in accordance with current IFPV guidance.
2.1.1.7 Training attendance, including recurrent training documentation.
2.1.1.8 Process for ensuring that all IFPV processes are approved and current.
2.1.1.9 Procedures for revising the operations manual including a revision tracking system.
2.1.2 Ground validation information. Performance-based navigation (PBN) IFP QA review process (outline internal review process).
2.1.3 Preflight validation information containing:
2.1.3.1 Simulator validation process.
2.1.3.1.1 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).
2-1
Chapter 2
2.1.3.1.2 Satellite-based RNAV simulator use requirements (i.e., methodology as to when a simulator check would be completed or required.
2.1.3.2 Obstacle assessment process, to include accuracy codes achievable using company specific equipment and process.
2.1.3.2.1 Ground obstacle assessment information (if applicable) containing:
1. Complete equipment list (hardware) to include type, make, model, software version, and revision if applicable (e.g., GPS Receiver – Global Sat BU-353).
2. Complete equipment list (software) to include software manufacturer, title, version, and purpose (e.g., Magellan Mobile Mapper Office, release 3.40A) used to post process recorded GPS data.
3. Step by step process for obstacle verification.
4. Process for ensuring any new or different obstacles identified during ground obstacle assessment are documented and IFP re-evaluated, if necessary.
2.1.3.2.2 Airborne obstacle assessment information (if applicable) containing:
1. Complete equipment list (hardware) to include type, make, model, software version, and revision if applicable (e.g., GPS Receiver - Global Sat 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 any new or different obstacles identified during an airborne obstacle assessment are documented and IFP re-evaluated, 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 appendix A].
2.1.4 Flight validation information containing:
2-2
Chapter 2
1. Quality assurance review process of IFP chart, FAA 8260-series forms comparison with navigation database (outline process used to compare and ensure matching data).
2. Complete flight validation equipment list (hardware) and software version and revision if applicable, e.g., GPS Receiver - Global Sat 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.
2.2 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.
2.2.1 Definition of the organization’s safety objectives.
2.2.2 Ability to present the safety situation in respect to compliance with all relevant FAA, internal, and other safety related standards.
2.2.3 Definition of the safety accountabilities of all personnel.
2.2.4 Continual review process for effectiveness by all personnel.
2.2.5 Process for staff to identify safety hazards or concerns and to suggest methods for enhancement of safety.
2.2.6 Established internal procedures for the communication and processing of safety concerns within the organization as they relate to IFPV.
2.2.7 Definition of the interface arrangements between internal groups of the organization as they relate to IFPV.
2.2.8 Compliance process applicable to all personnel of the organization.
2.2.9 Safety hazard/risk analysis and risk control/mitigation assessment in accordance with an established methodology endorsed by the FAA.
2.2.10 Quality management system based on those elements of ISO 9001 relevant to IFPV.
2.2.11 Oversight and audit program.
Note: The SMS/OSA guidance will be located in the Operational Guidance referenced in paragraph 2-1.
2-3
Chapter 3 CHAPTER 3. INSTRUMENT FLIGHT PROCEDURE VALIDATION (IFPV)
3.1 Process.
IFPV consists of three elements: ground validation, preflight validation, and flight validation.
3.1.1 Ground validation is a quality assurance 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 pre-flight validation phase.
3.1.2 Pre-flight validation will include an obstacle assessment and may include a simulator evaluation. Any issue identified during the pre-flight validation phase must be addressed prior to flight validation.
3.1.2.1 Determine any special operational issues specific to the IFP e.g., climb gradients, close proximity to restricted areas, speed restrictions, etc.
3.1.2.2 Verify the RNAV navigation database for correct coding of the PBN or WAAS IFP. Comparisons must be made between the RNAV or FMS navigation data as displayed on the control display unit and the applicable FAA 8260-series forms. Additionally, any notes and/or charted requirements and restrictions such as altitudes, speeds, courses, etc. must be validated.
3.1.2.3 Simulator evaluations are a valuable tool to test the procedure flyability and to compare database coding. They have the ability to test the procedure at the design limit and should be conducted where factors such as challenging terrain or specific operational considerations exist.
Simulator evaluations are required (fixed wing only) whenever there is a request for a waiver or request for flight standards approval for deviations from standard criteria. All areas listed on FAA Form 8260-30.1 should be evaluated. Provide feedback to the procedure designer who, if feasible, should be involved in the simulator evaluation. The simulator evaluation must be conducted in a FAA-qualified Level “C” or Level “D” flight simulator capable of flying the procedure. Information on simulator capabilities is available in 14 CFR Part 60 and from the FAA National Simulator Program. Additionally, desktop simulators are a valuable tool to verify coding and evaluate basic flyability.
Note: For Special PBN IFP designed for a specific make/model/series and specific FMS, software part number, software version, and revision, the simulator evaluation must be flown in an FAA-qualified Level “C” or Level “D” simulator with the exact configuration specified.
3-1
Chapter 3
3.1.2.4 Conduct an obstacle assessment verifying the height and location of the documented controlling obstacle for each segment of the IFP.
Perform a visual inspection of the obstacle evaluation area (OEA) to determine the presence of undocumented or inaccurately documented obstacles. Obstacle assessment must be performed in accordance with FAA Order 8200.1 and must be documented on FAA Form 8260-30.2.
3.1.2.4.1 A ground obstacle assessment can produce the most accurate results;
however, circumstances may prevent obstacle access.
3.1.2.4.2 An airborne obstacle assessment provides easier access to obstacles and OEA boundaries. Airborne obstacle assessments can be flown in any type of manned aircraft; however, assessments performed in helicopters or slow moving/small category aircraft are preferred. Obstacle assessment flight activities must comply with the flight rules contained in 14 CFR Part 91.
Any deviation from a rule during an obstacle assessment (e.g., 14 CFR Part 91.119 minimum safe altitudes – general) must be authorized by the geographically respective Flight Standards District Office. Consistent with FAA Order 8260.19, an airborne obstacle assessment will result in an accuracy code of 4D being assigned to that obstacle.
3.1.2.4.3 Document incorrect obstacle data such as obstacles that no longer exist or obstacle data that is inaccurate or is missing from the FAA obstacle databases. This information must be provided to the IFP designer and documented on the FAA Form 8260-30.2. All supporting information including photos, survey data, etc. must be retained by the organization.
Obstacle data inaccuracies, of any type, must be documented and accuracy codes assigned in accordance with FAA Order 8260.19.
3.1.2.4.4 If desired, a lower accuracy code specific to the process used by the IFPV provider may be coordinated with AFS-460. This authorization is specific to both the company and the individual performing the obstacle assessment. This accuracy code determination will be based upon the type of equipment used, its specifications, and a determination of process effectiveness.
3.1.3 Flight validation (FV).
3.1.3.1 Review the results of the simulator and obstacle evaluations, and review any specific training, operational, or equipment requirements.
3.1.3.2 Review the PBN IFP package per guidelines established in FAA Order 8200.1.
3.1.3.3 Compare the aircraft navigation database, chart depiction, and appropriate FAA 8260-series forms.
3-2
Chapter 3
3.1.3.4 Conduct an assessment of flyability to determine that all segments of the procedure can be safely flown considering required speeds, descent angles, climb gradients, etc. Flight validation must be conducted on-course/on-path and must be flown at or below the maximum intended speed on the developed lateral and vertical flight path. Flight validation must be accomplished in an aircraft capable of flying the procedure as designed.
Note 1: Exercise caution when evaluating a procedure where a groundbased NAVAID is used. Instrument procedures are developed using the airport’s magnetic variation. When flight procedures are coded, there may be a difference between the ARINC airport and the NAVAID magnetic variation record.
Note 2: If a NAVAID is used solely as a waypoint (latitude/longitude coordinates only), a flight validation is necessary for the flyability of the fix in the procedure design. If the electronic portion of the NAVAID is required to fly the procedure, a flight inspection of the signal must be performed by FAA Flight Inspection.
3.1.3.5 Conduct a controlling obstacle verification to provide the final assurance that the controlling obstacle has been correctly identified for each segment.
3.1.3.6 Verify that all airport/heliport infrastructures, such as runway markings, lighting, and communications, are in place and operative.
3.1.3.7 Evaluate other operational factors, such as aircraft equipment, performance limitations, and human factors.
3.1.3.8 Document the Flight Validation on the FAA Form 8260-30.3.
3.1.3.9 Flight Validation must be conducted in a manned aircraft and not conducted during revenue operations.
3.2 Requirements.
3.2.1 Pre-flight validation.
3.2.1.1 Personnel.
3.2.1.1.1 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 3-3
Chapter 3 pilot assisting in that evaluation must have experience in that particular aircraft and its flight guidance and navigation system.
3.2.1.1.2 Ground obstacle assessment. In order to conduct a ground obstacle assessment, the designated evaluator must hold an LOA for ground obstacle assessment.
3.2.1.1.3 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-incommand (PIC), the evaluator must provide an AFS-460 approved mission brief to the PIC. Airborne obstacle assessment must be conducted in a manned aircraft and not during revenue operations.
3.2.1.2 Weather. Airborne obstacle assessments must be conducted during day visual meteorological conditions (VMC) with sufficient in-flight ceiling and visibility to accomplish the assessment of obstacles.
3.2.2 Flight validation.
3.2.2.1 Personnel. The minimum crew complement is two pilots.
3.2.2.1.1 PIC must be:
1. Current and qualified in the appropriate aircraft and proficient with the specific FMS and associated software part number, software version, and revision.
2. Approved by AFS-400 or has received an AFS-460 approved brief.
3.2.2.1.2 Second-in-command (SIC) (if required) must be:
1. Current and qualified in the appropriate aircraft and proficient with the specific FMS and associated software part number, software version, and revision.
2. Approved by AFS-400 or has received an AFS-460 approved brief.
3.2.2.1.3 Flight validation evaluator. Although not required to be a crewmember, the evaluator may act as the PIC or SIC in accordance with the requirements above. The Flight Validation evaluator must be:
1. An FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (Operations) approved by AFS-460, or;
2. An individual with similar pilot qualifications who has completed AFS-460 approved training [see chapter 4] and received a Letter of Authorization from AFS-400, or 3-4
Chapter 3
3. A current and qualified Aviation System Standards Airspace System Inspection Pilot (ASIP).
3.2.2.2 Weather. Flight validation must be conducted during day visual meteorological conditions (VMC) [except as noted in 3-1-2b(2)(a)] with sufficient in-flight ceiling and visibility to accomplish the assessment of obstacles and determine that the procedure flight track reflects the IFP design.
3.2.2.2.1 Portions of the procedure above a published minimum IFR altitude (e.g., high-level portions of Standard Instrument Departures or Standard Terminal Arrival Routes) may be flown at night and/or in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC).
3.2.2.2.2 Approval of night minimums – A night evaluation is required when an IFR procedure is developed to an IFR or 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 infrastructure to include airport lighting systems prior to authorizing night minimums. Conduct all night evaluations during VMC with sufficient in-flight ceiling and visibility to assess the airport infrastructure.
3.2.2.3 Flight validation must be conducted in a manned aircraft and not during revenue operations.
3.3 Flight Validation of WAAS IFP. When conducting flight validation of WAAS IFP utilize an in-flight data collection system that enables in-flight or post-flight analysis to validate that FAS data elements for course alignment, threshold crossing height, and glide path angle are providing navigation guidance, as designed, to the physical runway threshold or point-in-space. The system must be capable of performing the necessary evaluations in a documented, quantitative fashion.
3-5
Chapter 4 CHAPTER 4. IFPV EVALUATOR TRAINING REQUIREMENTS Note: See FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 11, chapter 12, section 2 for a description of the entire authorization process.
4.1 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:
4.1.1 Familiarity with the PBN IFP design process and requirements for PBN operations. The requirements for PBN operations are outlined in the following FAA documents (use the latest revision)
• AC 90-100, U.S. Terminal and En Route Area Navigation (RNAV) Operations.
• AC 90-101, Approval Guidance for RNP Procedures with AR.
• AC 90-105, Guidelines for using Global Positioning System Equipment for IFR En Route and Terminal Operations and for Nonprecision Instrument Approaches in the U.S. National Airspace System.
• AC 120-40, Airplane Simulator Qualification.
• AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design.
• AC 150/5300-16, General Guidance and Specifications for Aeronautical Surveys:
Establishment of Geodetic Control and Submission to the National Geodetic Survey.
• AC 150/5300-17, General Guidance and Specifications for Aeronautical Survey Airport Imagery Acquisition and Submission to the National Geodetic Survey.
• AC 150/5300-18, General Guidance and Specifications for Aeronautical Surveys to NGS: Field Data Collections and Geographic Information System (GIS) Standards.
4.1.2 Knowledge of the procedure design criteria relevant to the type of IFP for which the individual is authorized to conduct as either pilot-in-command or evaluator. IFP design criteria are outlined in the following FAA documents:
• FAA Order 7100.9, Standard Terminal Arrival Program and Procedures.
• FAA Order 8200.1, United States Standard Flight Inspection Manual.
• FAA Order 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS).
• FAA Order 8260.19, Flight Procedures and Airspace.
4-1
Chapter 4
• FAA Order 8260.42, United States Standard for Helicopter Area Navigation.
• FAA Order 8260.46, Departure Procedure (DP) Program.
• FAA Order 8260.58, United States Standard for Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Instrument Procedure Design.
• FAA Order 8260.60, Special Instrument Procedures.
4.1.3 Training in the operation and post processing of data. Only for flight validation crews.
4.1.4 Process of completing FAA forms. FAA Forms 8260-30.1, 8260-30.2, and 8260-30.3;
and the process for providing feedback to the procedure designer. For 8260-30 series forms, see FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 11, chapter 12.
4.1.5 Flight validation requirements.
4.1.6 Procedure package review.
4.1.7 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.
4.1.8 Techniques and considerations for validation of obstacle data.
4.1.9 Airport infrastructure assessment.
4.1.10 Communications coverage.
4.1.11 Flyability/human factors assessment.
4.1.12 Use of automation tools and simulators or ground validation.
4.1.13 Charting considerations.
4.1.14 Operational factors.
4.1.15 Supervised on-the-job training (OJT). Adequate to achieve the required level of competency in obstacle assessment techniques, simulator evaluation, and flight validation.
4.2 Recurrent Training Requirements.
In order to exercise the privileges of the IFPV LOA, each evaluator must have performed an evaluation with an approved ASI during the previous 24 calendar months.
If the 24 calendar months has been exceeded, an approved ASI must accompany the evaluator on their next scheduled activity. The ASI will ensure that the evaluator is:
4.2.1 Aware of updates on relevant changes to design criteria.
4-2
Chapter 4
4.2.2 Applying current IFPV policy.
4.2.3 Proficient in conducting the specific IFPV activity (i.e., simulator validation, ground obstacle assessment, airborne obstacle assessment, and/or flight validation).
4.2.4 AFS-460 or approved ASI will document recurrent training complete on the IFPV Evaluator Check Record.
4-3
Chapter 5 CHAPTER 5. ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
5.1 Background. Historically, FAA ATO’s Technical Operations (AJW) has conducted flight inspections of all new or revised IFP including an assessment of ground-based navigation aids (NAVAID), procedure flyability, obstacle verification, and airport/heliport infrastructure. The term “flight inspection” specifically refers 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 Database (NDB) ARINC 424 coding, design accuracy, and required infrastructure (i.e., 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 advisory circular. Non-FAA service providers, with appropriate FAA authorization, who follow the IFPV process may design, develop, validate, and implement satellite-based IFP.
5.2 Definitions.
5.2.1 Accuracy codes. Standards for horizontal and vertical obstacle measurements are outlined in FAA Order 8260.19, appendix C.
5.2.2 Airborne obstacle assessment. An airborne assessment of obstacles considered to be of impact to the IFP, conducted in accordance with FAA 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.
Airborne obstacle assessment is conducted during the preflight validation phase of the IFPV process.
5.2.3 Area navigation (RNAV). A method of navigation which permits aircraft operation on any desired flight path 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: Area navigation includes performance-based navigation as well as other operations that do not meet the definition of performance-based navigation.
5.2.4 ARINC 424. This is an international standard file format for the preparation and transmission of data for assembly of airborne navigation system data bases.
5.2.5 Authorization required (AR). An authorization by the FAA to conduct RNP IFP designated as “Authorization Required.” Standards and criteria for the development of RNP AR IFP are based on a higher level of aircraft equipage and additional aircrew requirements.
5.2.6 Autonomous Global Positioning System Recording System (AGRS). A positioning and recording system independent from the aircraft navigation system (and does not interfere with any aircraft 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 5-1