1-2
1.5 Data Accuracy and Sources.
Satellite-based PBN IFP, RNAV (GPS), and RNAV (RNP) require highly accurate data based on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84). This requires all survey data used in the flight procedure to meet FAA Order 8260.19, Flight Procedures and Airspace, standards. It is mandatory that a quality assurance system covering all domains of data collection (surveys), processing, publication, and navigation database development be maintained. Input errors, particularly within the final approach segment (FAS) data block, can result in significant changes to the flight path in relation to the runway/pointin-space. The validation must ensure use of correct data for a valid flight procedure analysis. Sources of terrain, obstacle, and aeronautical data used, to include the source, type, date, version, and resolution of the data must be documented in accordance with FAA Order 8260.19.
1.6 Library.
A current copy of all relevant FAA documents (print or electronic), FAA-accepted IFPV operations manuals, publications, and correspondence pertinent to IFPV must be maintained by the non-FAA service provider. At a minimum, this library must contain the publications listed in Appendix A, paragraph A.2.
1.7 Records.
Records of the items listed below must be maintained for two years after an IFP is canceled and must be made available to the FAA for audit purposes upon request.
1.7.1 Obstacle assessment records.
1.7.2 Detailed survey reports.
1.7.3 Autonomous Global Positioning System Recording System (AGRS) recordings from ground and/or airborne obstacle assessment and flight validation activities.
1.7.3.1 Furnish the AGRS electronic file (compatible with FAA computer systems) from both the obstacle assessment and the flight validation to Flight Standards.
1.7.3.2 Submit the report in conjunction with the procedure package. The report must contain, at a minimum, the following elements:
Processing data and time;
Maximum number of satellites;
Minimum number of satellites;
Average position dilution of precision (PDOP);
1-3 Vertical protection level (VPL) [WAAS procedures only];
Maximum observed horizontal DOP (HDOP) [WAAS procedures only];
Horizontal protection level (HPL) [WAAS procedures only];
Maximum observed vertical DOP (VDOP) [WAAS procedures only];
For each segment, the maximum and minimum altitude, ground speed, climb rate, and climb gradient, and A printed graphic of sufficient detail that depicts the flight track flown referenced to the desired track of the approach procedure, including procedure fixes.
1.7.4 Helicopter IFP utilizing FAS data block SBAS/GBAS (WAAS). A documented analysis of the FAS data in relation to the landing threshold point or desired point-in-space for lateral and vertical path, and the cyclic redundancy code (CRC).
1.7.5 All IFPV activities. Use FAA Forms 8260-30.1, Simulator Validation Checklist;
8260-30.2, Obstacle Assessment Checklist, and 8260-30.3, Flight Validation Checklist.
1. The evaluator will use FAA Forms 8260-30.1, 8260-30.2, and 8260-30.3 for Simulator Validation, Obstacle Assessment, and Flight Validation respectively.
2. Include all of the original forms in the initial procedure package submitted to Flight Standards.
3. Forward signed copies of FAA Form 8260-30.2 to Flight Standards upon the completion of a periodic (540-day) obstacle assessment in the inspection window.
Digital signatures will be accepted.
4. Forms are located in FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS), Volume 11, chapter 12, section 1, table 11-1, and figures 11-30 through 11-32. Additionally, you can contact Flight Standards for current editions.
1.7.6 Personnel training records related to IFPV.
1.7.7 Individual and company IFPV letters of authorization.
1.7.8 Any additional items listed in the non-FAA service provider’s Operation Manual.
1-4 Figure 1-2. IFPV Process Flow
Note: Some of the steps may not be required or may be accomplished in a different order.
2-1 CHAPTER 2. SERVICE PROVIDER REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Operational Guidance.
The non-FAA service provider must have guidance acceptable to the Administrator
(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:
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 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 are approved and current.
9. Procedures for revising the operations manual including a revision tracking system.
2.1.2 Ground validation information. PBN IFP Quality Assurance (QA) review process (outline internal review process).
2.1.3 Pre-flight validation information containing:
2.1.3.1 Simulator validation process (if applicable).
2.1.3.1.1 QA review process of the Flight Management System (FMS) navigation database for correct coding of the PBN IFP (outline process used to compare and ensure matching data).
2.1.3.1.2 Simulator use requirements (i.e., methodology as to when a simulator check would be completed or required).
2-2
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, current version) 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., TARGETS current version) 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 B].
2.1.4 Flight validation information containing:
1. Quality assurance review process of IFP chart, FAA Order 8260-series forms comparison with navigation database (outline process used to compare and ensure matching data).
2-3
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 current version) 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.
3-1 CHAPTER 3. INSTRUMENT FLIGHT PROCEDURE VALIDATION (IFPV)
3.1 Process.
IFPV consists of three elements: ground validation, pre-flight 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 Although encouraged for all fixed wing procedures, simulator evaluations are required whenever there is a request for a waiver or request for Flight Standards approval for deviations from standard criteria for Special RNAV (RNP) Authorization Required (AR) Approach IAPs. 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. 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 Flight Management System (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.
3.1.2.2.1 Verify the navigation database for correct coding of the performance based navigation (PBN) instrument flight procedure (IFP). Comparisons must be made between the area navigation (RNAV) or FMS navigation data as displayed on the control display unit and the applicable FAA
3-2 8260-series forms, and the flight inspection graphic (FIG). Additionally, any notes and/or charted requirements and restrictions such as altitudes, speeds and courses must be validated.
3.1.2.3 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.
Ground obstacle assessment may be used to satisfy the requirement of periodic (540-day) inspections.
3.1.2.3.1 A ground obstacle assessment may produce the most accurate results;
however, circumstances may prevent ground obstacle access.
3.1.2.3.2 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.
3.1.2.3.3 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 and survey data 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.
3.1.2.3.4 If desired, a lower accuracy code specific to the process used by the IFPV provider may be coordinated with Flight Standards. 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).
1. Review the results of the simulator and obstacle evaluations, and review any specific training, operational, or equipment requirements. Review the PBN IFP package per guidelines established in FAA Order 8200.1.
3-3
2. Compare the aircraft navigation database, chart depiction, and appropriate FAA Order 8260-series forms, and the flight inspection graphic (FIG).
3. Conduct an assessment of flyability to determine that all segments of the procedure can be safely flown considering required speeds, climb gradients, descent gradients, coded flight path/glide path angles, and bank angles. Flight validation must be conducted per guidelines established in FAA Order 8200.1 and company operations manual and 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 complete (instrument and visual portions) procedure as designed.
4. Conduct a controlling obstacle verification to provide the final assurance that the controlling obstacle has been correctly identified for each segment.
5. Verify that all airport/heliport infrastructures, such as markings, lighting, and communications are in place and operative (exceptions: locations without lighting:
NA at night, no Proceed Visual).
6. Evaluate other operational factors, such as aircraft equipment (e.g., TAWS/EGPWS), performance limitations such as minimum and maximum temperature limits, and human factors/cockpit workload.
7. Document the Flight Validation on the FAA Form 8260-30.3.
8. 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. To receive an LOA, simulator evaluation pilots will have similar qualifications as a flight validation evaluator as specified in paragraph 3.2.2.1.3. For Special IFPs 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.
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. Use of an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) for obstacle assessment will be considered a ground obstacle assessment and must be documented in an accepted operations manual.
3-4
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 a Flight Standards-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 (AOA) must be conducted during day visual meteorological conditions (VMC) with sufficient inflight ceiling and visibility to accomplish the assessment of obstacles.
AOA must not be conducted at night or in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Night means the time between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight, as published in the Air Almanac, converted to local time.
3.2.2 Flight validation.
3.2.2.1 Personnel. The minimum crew complement is two pilots. If a SIC is not required then a safety pilot may be used.
3.2.2.1.1 PIC must be:
1. Current and qualified in the appropriate type of aircraft (fixed wing or helicopter) and appropriate category (maneuver/speed capability for helicopters) and proficient with the specific FMS and associated software part number, software version, and revision.
2. Approved by the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division or has received a Flight Standards-approved brief.
3.2.2.1.2 Second-in-command (SIC) (if required) must be:
1. Current and qualified in the appropriate type of aircraft (fixed wing or helicopter) and appropriate category (maneuver/speed capability for helicopters) and proficient with the specific FMS and associated software part number, software version, and revision.
2. Approved by the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division or has received a Flight Standards-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:
3. An FAA ASI (Operations) approved by Flight Standards, or;
4. An individual with similar pilot qualifications who has completed Flight Standards-approved training (see chapter 4) and received a
3-5 Letter of Authorization from the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, or
5. A current and qualified Airspace System Inspection Pilot (ASIP).
3.2.2.1.4 Procedure Evaluation Pilot (PEP). A PEP conducts a procedure specific onsite evaluation of the landing location for certain helicopter instrument flight procedures. Non-FAA service providers with similar experience as a rotor craft Aviation Safety Inspector, who has completed Flight Standardsapproved training (see chapter 4), and received a PEP Letter of Authorization from the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division may conduct onsite procedure specific evaluations.
3.2.2.2 Weather. Flight validation must not be conducted at night or IMC (except as noted in paragraph 3.2.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2.2). Ensure 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 IMC.
3.2.2.2.2 Approval of night minimums. A night evaluation is required when an IFR procedure is developed for airports, heliports, or landing areas with no prior IFR service and:
Procedure is to a newly constructed runway, heliport, or landing area, or;
A runway, heliport, or landing area has been lengthened, shortened, or relocated.
1. The purpose of the night evaluation is to determine the adequacy of airport/heliport/landing area lighting systems prior to authorizing night minimums. Each procedure with a “Fly visual” or “Proceed Visually” segment proposed for night use must be evaluated at night prior to commissioning, or must be restricted from night use until the evaluation is completed. A night evaluation is not required to landing surfaces serviced by point-in-space procedures (approach and departure) with a “Proceed VFR” segment(s).
2. Determine the adequacy of infrastructure to include lighting systems prior to authorizing night minimums (e.g., photocell, radio control, local lighting patterns in the area surrounding the airport, heliport, or landing area and do not distract, confuse, or incorrectly identify the runway, heliport, or landing area environment).
3-6
3. Conduct all night evaluations during VMC (or visual guidance for navigation in the "visual" segment of a helicopter approach) with sufficient in-flight ceiling and visibility to assess the airport, heliport, or landing area infrastructure.
3.3 Flight Validation of Space Based Augmentation System (SBAS)/ Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS) WAAS IFP.
When conducting flight validation of SBAS/GBAS (WAAS) IFP utilize an in-flight data collection system that enables in-flight or post-flight analysis to validate that FAS data elements provide 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.