With airspace and flight procedure development in the forefront of the news these
days, we are going to begin a new series that discusses how airspace and flight
procedures are developed. In this series, we will discuss th
Background s this new series of is kicked off, it is beneficial to define the “credibility”, if you will, of the author. I am currently a Captain of the B-737 for a major airline and during tenure at the airline, I spent 9 years in charge of their airspace and flight procedure over and nt programs. Additionally, I am an FAA approved flight procedure designer, have been an FAA flight examiner, have consulted to the FAA and International Civil Avia Organization (ICAO) on flight procedures and consulted to gove r pe officials, and now private Honeywell and Boeing. These series will pull from that experience and attempt to demystify airspace and flight procedure development so that they can be better understood when viewi interrelated.ng ty, airport, and other stakeholder concerns.
Part 1: Difference between Conventional and RNAV Flight Procedures
Historic procedures were built around ground based navigation aids from
which aircraft wo receive signals/guidance to navigate along their flight p ahdrte a wider basis must address all as “Conventional” flight procedures. Figure 1 shows a current
Conventional procedure into San Francisco airport where the ground based
navigation aids a BridgeNet’s core philosophy he and are identified by red circles.