Page 44 - Volume 20 No. 6

PERSPECTIVES
By Kevin R. Dingman
S Except...
ince the introduction of GPS and WAAS, many innovative, useful devices, systems, and procedures have been developed and certified. And much
written about the resulting departures, arrivals and approaches, using the technology. As we become more reliant on GPS, we are less inclined to need memorization and math to fly our machines. Perhaps the E6-B and plotter have finally gone the way of the abacus and slide rule. Information is now calculated, compiled and presented in such a way that our situational awareness is higher than ever before. And this has greatly improved the safety and utility of our airplanes. Single-pilot IMC in high performance aircraft is a safe endeavor because of training, mandatory equipment, and the reliability of avionics, powerplants and airframes. But, most significantly, it’s because of the decreased workload these new technologies and reliability provide. However, as our airspace becomes more saturated, and we attempt to lessen controller workload, we have seen some of that workload shifted back to the pilot.
We’ve all seen changes over the years: TCA’s (Terminal Control Areas–now Class B), TFR’s (temporary flight restrictions – that often aren’t temporary after all), RVSM (reduced vertical separation minimums), LAHSO (land and hold short), PRM (precision runway monitoring), enroute RNAV (area navigation), RNAV approaches, and descend-via and climb-via RNAV arrivals/departures. These procedures have been developed for a variety of reasons, some of them to increase the utility of our airspace system and airports and some to allow more aircraft to use the airspace and airports simultaneously. There’s no doubt the procedures are more stable, predictable and accurate than ever before. And GPS/WAAS has opened thousands of “little” general aviation airports through the use of LPV minimums. But the changes are not without some new issues.
Knees Up Your Nose
One major influence in the effort to increase airspace utilization has been the Part 121 operators.
The philosophy of cramming more seats, and therefore more paying passengers, into airliners by removing galleys, bathrooms and leg-room, can create an environment for record-setting revenues. In airline parlance, arranging more airplanes into the ramp, runway and enroute structure means higher departure and arrival rates, quicker turn times and higher gate utilization. And, therefore, more efficient use of high-dollar assets–which,
42 • TWIN & TURBINE
when managed properly, means higher profits. And this sounds good from the boardroom or from the perspective of the airspace redesign consortium.... in theory. But, when you’re the one with your knees up your nose in a coach seat, sitting in a long line of departing aircraft, or the PIC in your single-pilot jet with a full plate of issues trying to fly a “controller-modified” arrival or approach in congested airspace, it looks quite different.
Three Dimensions + Velocity
Descend-via and climb-via procedures have created a potential task-saturation issue for pilots. More of the responsibility for traffic separation is being transferred to the pilots, by requiring us to fly a predicted, precise three-dimensional track at varying airspeeds. I fly 85 to 95 hours each month at my carrier, in and out of airports with descend-via and climb-via procedures, as well as RNAV/GPS approaches.
Most arrivals begin with a descend-
via procedure and terminate with
an ILS. Sometimes at night in IMC
with bumps, ice and a mechanical
issue, sometimes in smooth, problem-
free, daytime VMC. Sometimes with
lots of traffic, sometimes with none.
This equates to about fifty
climb-via departures,
descend-via arrivals
and ILS’s each month,
in varying weather and
traffic saturation levels
– so I’m familiar with
the concept.
As long as we do some simple math and